IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6267 of 2011() ------------------------- CRIME NO.300/2011 OF PUTHENKURIZ POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER : ACCUSED -------------------- MANOJ, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTI, AGED 30 YEARS, MULAKKASSERY HOUSE, NORTH MAZHAVANNOOR KARA, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 695 551. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS : COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. MAYA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. MADHAVAN, MALIKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, MAGATTOOR KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-695 551. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6267 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 05th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.300 of 2011 of Puthenkuriz Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. It is submitted that the alleged victim is aged 24 years. She delivered of a child on 29/07/2011. It is submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and de facto complainant took place on 02/08/2011. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are true. 4. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Bail Appln.No.6267/2011 : 2 : 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 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. 5. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Bail Application can be Bail Appln.No.6267/2011 : 3 : disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolanchery within two weeks and move for regular bail. 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 petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency and he shall undergo the potency test. This shall be one of the conditions while granting bail. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj