IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7114 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.1011/2009 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- 1. ABRAHAM.T. LATHARA, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. GEEVARUGHESE MAMMEN, LATHARA VEEDU, MUTHOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SHAJAN MANI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.P.M. MANI, ERAMALAIL, PERUMPAICKAL MURI AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.7114 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1011/2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant was working as Chief Sub Editor in Kerala Bhooshanam Daily. On 10/11/2009, he was on duty from 1 P.M to 8 P.M. Since, he was ill, he went to the hospital. By about 9 P.M., he came back. At that time, the first accused asked the de facto complainant where he had gone. Dissatisfied by the explanation given by the de facto complainant, he was called by his caste name and he was threatened to be dismissed from service. The allegation against the second accused is that on an earlier occasion, he had mentioned about the caste name of the de facto B.A. No.7114 / 2009 2 complainant and he had not delivered the registered letter addressed to the de facto complainant. In the F.I. Statement, it is stated that in respect of that incident, the de facto complainant had filed a petition earlier. 4. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not lie in respect of an offence under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In Shanu Vs. State of Kerala [2000(3) K.L.T. 452], it was held that the Magistrate has power to grant bail to an accused in cases coming under Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that case, High Court directed the Magistrate to grant bail to the accused. The decision in Shanu's case was followed in B.A. No. 789/2005 and also in Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. M.C. No.3036/2004). In Ali Vs. State of Kerala [2000(2) K.L.T.280], it was held that there is no bar for the Magistrate to grant bail in such cases on the basis of the general principles enunciated in Section 437 of the B.A. No.7114 / 2009 3 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Sukumari Vs. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T.22], it was held that the power under Section 437 can be invoked by the Magistrate even in cases involving a Session offence. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners can be directed to be released on bail. The Bail Application is disposed of as follows: (a) The petitioners shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -I, Thiruvalla and apply for regular bail within a period of ten days from today. (b) If the petitioners comply with the above condition, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioners on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm