IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5054 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 87/2009 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION, WYNAD ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- M.K.MAHAROOF, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, M.K.HOUSE, CHALAD, KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.M. RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA & SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5054 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 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.87/2009 of Thirunelly Police Station, Wynad. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The petitioner is the Tribal Extension Officer of Thirunelly. The defacto complainant is the president of Thirunelly Grama Panchayath. The allegation is that on 29/7/2009, the Panchayath Committee met. There was an allegation that the Tribal Extension Officer was not helpful in properly implementing the projects for the welfare of the Tribals. The Tribal Extension Officer was called to the meeting and matters were explained to him. The petitioner, who is the Tribal Extension Officer, is alleged to have replied that he was not bound to implement the projects of the Panchayath and that he was bound to implement only the projects of the B.A. No. 5054/2009 2 Government. It is alleged that the defacto complainant further explained the duty of the Tribal Extension Officer to implement the decision of the Panchayath. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioner insulted the defacto complainant by calling his caste name. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 29/7/2009, several panchayath members and members of the general public rushed to the office of the Tribal Extension Officer and locked the petitioner in his office room. He was not allowed to go out. Thereafter he was beaten up. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 29/7/2009 and he was discharged from the hospital on 30/7/2009. According to the petitioner, the present case was foisted against him in order to escape from the case of attack against him and also to see that the petitioner does not get bail. 5. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 10/9/2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail application, it B.A. No. 5054/2009 3 is necessary to permit the petitioner to appear before the Police on 23rd and 24th September, 2009 at 9 A.M. Post on 29/9/2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested till then.” 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the direction issued by this Court. 7. Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that no application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be entertained in respect of an offence allegedly committed under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in such cases, this Court had occasion to direct the learned Magistrate to grant bail. In Shanu Vs. State of Kerala [2000(3) K.L.T. 452], it was held that the Magistrate has power to grant bail to an accused in cases under Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act . In that case, High Court directed the Magistrate to grant bail. Shanu's B.A. No. 5054/2009 4 case was followed in B.A. No. 789/2005 and also in Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. M.C. No.3036/2004). In Ali Vs. State of Kerala [2000(2) K.L.T.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 Vs. State of Kerala [2001(1) K.L.T.22], this Court held that there is no bar under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate to grant bail in cases involving a Session offence. 8. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a direction can be issued to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mananthavady to grant bail to the petitioner. I do so. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of two weeks and move for bail. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm