IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2770 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.269/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 2, 3 & 5 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SAMAD, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED SALI, BEKAL KOTTAKUNNU, PALLIKARA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ROUNAK, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUNEER BEKAL KOTTAKUNNU, PALLIKARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. GAFOOR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.K.B.MOHAMMED, BEKAL, PALLIKARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, (CR.NO.269 OF 2010), BEKAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2770 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 324, r/w 149 IPC and 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. According to prosecution, petitioners (A2, A3 and A5) along with twelve others formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons like cricket stump and sticks committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted her and inflicted injuries etc. They also abused her by referring to her caste name. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are accused numbers two, three and five and against them, there are no specific allegations. It is also submitted that all the accused referred to the caste name of de facto complainant which is not probable. Accused numbers two and three are students. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the names of petitioners are mentioned in the FIR itself. Offence alleged is under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act and calling of caste name by all accused is not essential to attract the offence. It is sufficient if a woman belonging to SC/ST is assaulted or criminal force is used by the accused on her, he not being a member of SC/ST. Under Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act B.A No.2770 OF 2010 2 there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act in granting anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per FIS, second and third accused have insulted de facto complainant by referring to her caste name and they are petitioners one and two. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also to be noted that there is a bar under Section 18 of 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act to grant anticipatory bail. Regarding the involvement of 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. Petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstance to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv