IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6065 of 2011 CRIME NO.146 OF 2011 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- DEVAKI @ DEVAYANI, W/O.LATE MANI KONNANPURA VEEDU, MUNDIYANKKAVU PO, KOTTACHANDA, PARUTHIPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.BABITHA P.G. RESPONDENTS: FCOMPLAINANTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYI,PALAKKAD 678 002. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6065 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 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 sole accused in Crime No.146 of 2011 of Kottayi Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. One Premadasan filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Alathur, stating that an extent of 13 cents of land belonged to his predecessor-in-interest and it is now illegally occupied by the petitioner herein. Premadasan contended that in 1976, the Land Tribunal issued purchase certificate in respect of the land in favour of his predecessor-in-interest. The Tahsildar appears to have conducted an enquiry and referred the matter to the District Collector and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alathur. The Deputy BAIL APPL. NO.6065 OF 2011 :: 2 :: Superintendent of Police forwarded the petition to the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case. 4. The case of Premadasan is that Raman, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, was entitled to only 53 cents of land in the particular survey number, but he fraudulently obtained a purchase certificate for an extent of 66.5 cents of land. 5. The case of the petitioner is that Raman, S/o.Karuppan, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner obtained the purchase certificate in S.M.No.455/1978 of Kuzhalmannam Land Tribunal, for an extent of 66.5 cents of land in Sy.No.75/5A of Peringottukurissi Village. Raman died. The husband of the petitioner also died. According to the petitioner, after the death of her husband, the petitioner has rights over the property. 6. The dispute is of a civil nature which has to be decided by the civil court. The identity of the property, ownership of the same, derivation of title and all other relevant aspects need be looked into in order to resolve the controversy and that can be done only by the civil court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the BAIL APPL. NO.6065 OF 2011 :: 3 :: ingredients of Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out and therefore, Section 18 of the Act is not a bar for entertaining an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The offences alleged against the petitioner is 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO.6065 OF 2011 :: 4 :: persons accused of a non-bailable offence or in respect of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 8. 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 Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction, 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 Bail Application is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/