IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3521 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.296/10 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER (S):/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNJU RESIDING AT NAMBOOIRI KANDATHIL, THURUTHUMA, CHEMBU VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMANAN, S/O.KUNJU, RESIDING AT PEEDIKA PARAMABIL, THURUTHUMA, CHEMBU VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): /COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3521 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 324, 323,506 (II), 34 of IPC and section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused No.1 and 2) in furtherance of common intention assaulted defacto complainant, using a stick and caused injuries and criminally intimidated him. It is also alleged that defacto complainant was humiliated by calling his caste name. The incident happened on 7.2.2010. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it was the defacto complainant who had beaten petitioners and they had suffered injuries. A complaint was made to the police and FIR was registered against defacto complainant u/s.341, 294(b), 323, 324 IPC. Injuries were also caused to accused in this case, as evidenced by annexure-4 and annexure-3 series. Defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the court, only much B.A. No.3521/10 2 late, FIR was registered only on 4.3.2010. This case is only a counter blast to the complaint made by one of the petitioners. It is also submitted that many other crimes are registered against defacto complainant. The allegations made against petitioners are false. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the allegation made by defacto complainant was that first accused called caste name and second accused used iron rod to assault defacto complainant. On investigation, it was revealed that it was a stick. Stick is to be recovered, and accused is to be interrogated for the purpose of recovery. It is submitted that there is a bar u/s.18 of SC ST PA Act in granting anticipatory bail in cases involving offence u/s. 3 of SC ST PA Act. It is also submitted that defacto complainant had sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital on the very next day of the incident on 8.2.2010 and hence, delay in registration of FIR can be explained. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the wound certificate, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned public prosecutor. The mere fact that there is delay in filing the private complaint cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. B.A. No.3521/10 3 Except the fact that another case was registered against defacto complainant, petitioners have not established any ground for getting anticipatory bail. Mere registration of two crimes in respect of same incident is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The delay in lodging the complaint is also not sufficient to invoke section 438 of Cr.P.C. In view of the bar u/s.18 of SC ST PA Act also anticipatory bail cannot be granted. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.