IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6341 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRMP.3157/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 449/2009 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- SHAMEER ALI, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MAMBAMBRAN HOUSE, KODUMTHIRAPALLI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6341 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 449/2009 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the Case Diary. 4. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in a case where an offence under the Act is alleged. In the present case, I am satisfied, prima faice, that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. B.A. No. 6341 of 2009 2 Prima facie, I am not satisfied that no case is made out against the petitioner so as to get over the rigour under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mother of the defacto complainant belongs to Ezhava community and therefore the defacto complainant cannot be treated as a member of the Scheduled Caste so as to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Tahsildar, Palakkad has issued a certificate stating that on the basis of enquiry, it was revealed that Anil Kumar, the defacto complainant, belongs to Hindu Cheruman S.C. community. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the defacto complainant does not belong to a Scheduled Caste. 6. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the application for Anticipatory Bail filed by the petitioner has observed that the Magistrate is competent to grant bail in a case where the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled B.A. No. 6341 of 2009 3 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is alleged. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the decisions of this court in Ali Vs. State of Kerala 2000(2) KLT 280 and Shanu Vs. State of Kerala 2000(3) KLT 452. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln