IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6516 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.698/2009 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ JAMSHEER.K.T., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAYINKUTTY, KODITHODIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PULPETTA, MANJERI-676126. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6516 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 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 first accused in Crime No.698/2009 of Manjeri Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The de facto complainant belongs to a scheduled caste. He sustained fracture of Tibia and other injuries on 23/10/2009. The allegation is that the accused persons caused injuries on him on account of his refusal to settle another case, in which the allegation was that the members of the Scheduled Caste Colony were attacked by the accused persons and others. The petitioner was admitted in the Govt. Hospital, Manjeri on 23/10/2009. 4. I have gone through the Case Diary. Prima facie, B.A. No. 6516 /2009 2 there are materials to indicate that the petitioner and other accused are involved in the offence. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that in cases where the offences under the Act are alleged, an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be maintainable. 5. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also on account of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm