IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 268 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.2389/07 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- C.R.SREEJITH @ RAJEEV, AGED 21, S/O.RAJAMONY, CHEPPILLIL HOUSE, MANACKAPPADY, KARUMALOOR, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE (CRIME NO.2389/07), ALUVA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.268 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The alleged incident took place on 25.12.07. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. In the light of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the criminal court is jurisdictionally incompetent to grant anticipatory bail to a person facing allegations/indictment for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. This Court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that the offences are triable exclusively by a court of Session doest not detract against the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 437 Cr.P.C to consider the application on merits. Every court must do the same. The position has been reiterated by this Court in Ali v. State of B.A.No.268 of 2008 2 Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280], Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452], Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.) 42] and P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.)250]. 4. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-