IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5659 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.381/08 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. SABU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 44, PANAKKALA HOUSE, NEELIPURATHU POST, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. ANNA ALIA ANNAI MATHEW, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5659 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(1) and 427 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Petitioners are son and mother. On a complaint that the petitioners trespassed into the property of Ramachandra Kaimal and abused his worker and criminally intimidated him and caused damage to the coconut shall used for rubber tapping and also insulted and humiliated the worker by making statements referring to his caste name etc. in public view, a crime was registered under various Sections against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. In respect of the same incident, two crimes are registered as Crime Nos.180/2008 and 381/2008, on the basis of the complaints lodged by Ramachandra Kaimal and his worker. BA.5659/08 2 But, Crime No.380/2008 was lodged on 4.6.2008 and Crime No.381/2008 was lodged on 11.6.2008. In the earlier complaint, no allegation is made regarding the involvement of the second petitioner, who is a lady, aged 70 years. Hence, false allegations are made by the de facto complainant (worker) against the petitioners, as motivated by Ramachandra Kaimal. No incident has happened as alleged. But these complaints are lodged only because there was a dispute with respect to a property between the first petitioner and Ramachandra Kaimal. Other criminal cases were taken on file as C.C.Nos.610/2005, 444/2006 and 1278/2003. Because of the enmity between the parties, this case is falsely foisted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that two crimes were registered in respect of the same incident and it is clubbed together and now the offences involved are under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(1) and 427 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In both BA.5659/08 3 the complaints filed by Ramachandra Kaimal and his worker, allegations are made, which will attract offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is a prohibition under Section 18 of the said Act in granting anticipatory bail, though other offences are bailable. It is also pointed out that seven witnesses are already questioned by the police and all of them have spoken against the petitioners, with respect to the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the second petitioner is not involved in the offence and her name is deleted from the accused array. This submission is recorded. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and a direction may be given to dispose of the bail application without delay. It is also submitted that prohibition under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not an BA.5659/08 4 absolute bar, but on considering the facts and circumstances, anticipatory bail can be granted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, at this stage, it is not possible to say that the prohibition under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not apply. In both the complaints, allegations are made which will attract offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner in a case of this nature. I find that it is not proper, at this stage to come to a conclusion that the allegations made are absolutely false, only in the light of the submissions made on behalf of petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the seven witnesses have spoken against the petitioners. However, if the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate Court and if any bail application is filed, it shall be disposed of as early as possible on merit. It is needless to say that the consideration for granting anticipatory bail and for BA.5659/08 5 granting bail under Section 437 are different. It is made clear that bail application shall be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court on merit. Hence, the following order is passed: i) Second petitioner is not involved in the offence and hence, the prayer is infructuous. ii) Prayer for anticipatory bail by the first petitioner is rejected. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.