IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5693 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.495/2008 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- JERRY, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, PUTHUR DESOM, KAIPARAMBU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5693 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 506 (1) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Atrocity Act. According to prosecution, on 29.8.2008, at about 8.30 p.m., petitioner allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and abused him in public, referring to his caste name etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations are absolutely false and police is motivated against petitioner to foist a false case. Several atrocities were committed by police against petitioner from the year 2005 onwards. Petitioner is doing business in watch repairing. Close to his shop, there is a barber shop. From the barber shop, several persons, including police constables, used to create problems to petitioner. When he raised protest, his shop was demolished and all these facts were reported in several newspapers which are produced along with this petition. When the police harassment continued, petitioner filed a writ petition against police harassment and as per the order in the writ petition, Annexure F, a direction was issued to consider complaint raised by BA No.5693 /2008 2 petitioner and take necessary action. 4. On the date of alleged occurrence, petitioner had allegedly gone to a taxi stand, enquiring about one Anto. Some drivers made some advances towards petitioner, under intoxication. He was assaulted by them and he went to the police station to make a complaint in the same night. But, there was no sufficient police in the station. So, he came back. On the next day, on 30.8.2008, he went to the hospital. Thereafter, he came back to the police station again. 5. According to learned counsel for petitioner when the petitioner went to the police station on 30.8.2008 and made a complaint, defacto complainant was called to the police station by the police. Thereafter, they persuaded the defacto complainant to give a complaint against petitioner and based on it, the present crime was registered against petitioner. 6. The defacto complainant actually did not commit any overt act against petitioner. It is also submitted that the ASI demanded bribe for taking a case and when he refused, the case was not registered. The police compelled defacto complainant to file a fake complaint, it is submitted. Now, the defacto complainant filed an affidavit stating that he has no grievance BA No.5693 /2008 3 against petitioner. Because of this, he is facing a threat from the police. Police deliberately included offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Atrocity Act with an intention to harass petitioner. If the petitioner is arrested in this crime, which was registered in the circumstances stated above, he will suffer irreparable injury and loss. It will result in great in justice, if petitioner is refused anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. Petitioner had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police on this issue. Copy is Annexure B. He also made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Human Rights Commission has taken up the issue and an enquiry is being conducted and it is reported in the newspaper and the report is Annexure C. The defacto complainant filed an affidavit before this Court as Annexure G. 8. Learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner has committed the offence and the complaint is lodged by a private individual and not by the police. It is submitted that he is not aware of the alleged compromise and affidavit filed by the defacto complainant. The other allegations against police are denied. 9. On hearing both sides and on going through the BA No.5693 /2008 4 records, it appears to me that petitioner has a strong and arguable case which can be established only at the time of evidence. If anticipatory bail is refused to the petitioner, it will result in great injustice. Though offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Atrocity Act is lodged, in the light of the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant and consideration of the various facts and circumstances pointed out, I find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following condition: (i) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl