IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5314 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRIMENO.344/2011 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. JAYARAJAN, S/O. SOMAN CHETTIAR, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, MUTTAIKADU, VENGANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. ASARY, BATHAYAL VILAKATHU VEEDIU, MUTTAIKADU, MENGANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOVALAM, TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 627 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No. 5314 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the 1st and 3rd accused in Crime No.344 of 2011 of the Kovalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the Money Lenders Act and 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars the maintainability of an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence B.A. No. 5314 OF 2011 2 committed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the Bail Application is not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate, it is not likely that the learned Magistrate would grant bail even if it is shown that no offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. 5. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22), it was held that even in respect of an offence triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate would have jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not very correct. With the above observations, the Bail Application is disposed of. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms