IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7863 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME 727/07 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- MURALI @ PALUNNI, KULAKUTTIYIL HOUSE, EDANADU MURI, MALAYALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 7863 OF 2007 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3 (1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act. All other offences are bailable offenes. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Allegations under the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act have been raised with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act, the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be favourably entertained. BA.7863/07 : 2 : 4. I find merit in the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor. In the light of Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act, this Court is not jurisdictionally competent to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Though the petitioner raised the contention that the allegations do not constitute any offence under the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act, a perusal of the FIR shows that the said contention cannot now be accepted. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. This Court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that the offence under the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act is triable exclusively by a court of session will not in any way take away the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail on merits. The decisions in Ali Vs. State of Kerala [2000 (2) KLT 280], Shanu Vs. State of Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 452], Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 42] and P.P.Kader Vs. State of Kerala [2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 250] BA.7863/07 : 3 : clarify the said controversy beyond doubt. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. If the petitioner surrenders 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks