IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8504 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.1930 of 2011 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam District. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. THANOOF V.N., S/O.NOUSHAD V.A., VAZHAVELIL HOUSE, P.O.VADAKKEPURAM NAGAR, NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SANOOJ V.M., S/O.MAJEED, VATHELIL HOUSE, FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE QUARTERS, (FACT QUARTERS), O.D.6., P.O.ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY.P.P.SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.8504 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November , 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1930 of 2011 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2.The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3.The crime was registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant on 8.10.2011 in respect of an incident which took place on 7.10.2011. In the First Information Statement there is no mention of any offence having been committed under the B.A.No. 8504 OF 2011 2 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The offences under the Indian Penal Code alleged against the petitioners are bailable offences. Later, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioners 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 Kerala). In Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT B.A.No. 8504 OF 2011 3 280), 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. 6. 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 petitioners to appear before the Magistrate concerned within two weeks and move for regular bail within a period of two weeks. When such an application is filed, the court shall grant bail to the petitioners on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms