IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6571 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.623 of 2011 of Chengannoor Police Station. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. KRISHNAMMA SASI, AGED 48 YEARS, VALLIYIL VEETIL, ANGADIKAL, THEKKUMMURIEL, CHENGANNOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. 2. DEEPU JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 31 YEARS, MERCY BHAVAN, KOTTUKULATHIL MURIYIL, ALLA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.6571 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 ORDER 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.623 of 2011 of Chengannoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. She was allotted puramboke land by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation. The first accused was residing in a hut in the puramboke land. That hut was removed for widening of PWD Road. The B.A. No.6571 OF 2011 2 first accused put up a shed in the aforesaid land allotted to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant filed petitions before the Police and other authorities complaining about it. The first accused did not vacate the land after removing the shed. The defacto complainant filed a petition before the Police stating that unless and until the first accused is arrested and the encroachment removed, she would conduct a hunger strike before the Police Station. Accordingly, the crime was registered for the aforesaid offences. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioner include an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), this Court held that the Magistrate has got power to grant bail to the accused even in cases under clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that case, the learned Magistrate was directed to grant bail to the accused. The decision in Shanu's case was followed by another learned single Judge in 2005 (1) KLD 250 (B.A.No.789 of 2005) and in 2005 KHC 2058 (Krishna Kumar v. State of B.A. No.6571 OF 2011 3 Kerala). In Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), it was held that there is no bar for the Magistrate for granting bail in such cases on the basis of the general principles enunciated in Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22), it was held that Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not create an absolute bar on the Magistrate to the grant of bail to persons accused of a non-bailable offence or in respect of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 5. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Bail Application can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate concerned within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms