IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7266 of 2011() ----------------------------- PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------- ANIL, S/O.KANNAN, ADUKKATHIL HOUSE, PAKKAM, PAKKAM P.O., PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.T.K.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.7266 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.710 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.6.2011, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and enquired about Gireesh, the son-in-law of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant stated that Gireesh was not there. At that time, the accused abused the defacto B.A.No.7266 OF 2011 2 complainant and his wife. The defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner 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 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 B.A.No.7266 OF 2011 3 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 petitioner 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 learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms