IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7888 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------------ ( CRIME NO. 186/08 OF PEERUMED POLICE STATION ) .................... PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ MONI, PALACKAL HOUSE, PILLAPURA BHAGOM, CHINNAR KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANILAL. RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. B Y THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7888 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). According to prosecution, petitioner intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate the defacto complainant, who is a member of a Schedule Caste, he himself not being a member of the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and thereby committed the above offences. The incident happened when the Grama Sabha meeting was going on. The defacto complainant is a panchayath member. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the Chairman of the Grama Vikasana Samithi and also an ex-officio member of Grama Sabha. In the year 2007, prior to filing of this complaint, he had made a complaint against the defacto complainant for corruption. Two other complaints are also made against her (vide Annexures 2 and 4) related to corruption. Therefore, a false complaint is filed against petitioner, it is submitted. Even if the entire B.A.No.7888 of 2008 2 allegations are accepted, the overt act allegedly committed by petitioner will not constitute offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is submitted. 4. According to petitioner, the defacto complainant is a member of a caste by name “Sambava” but the accused referred to the name of another caste, “Paraya”. It is also submitted that there is a long delay in filing the complaint. The incident happened on 22.04.2008 and the registration of the crime is only on 27.04.2008. It is also submitted that Annexure VI, the minutes of the meeting will show that there was no disturbance, though the defacto complainant has a case that the meeting was disturbed etc. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that persons in the same community are referred to by both these names such as, “Sambava” and “Paraya”. It is also submitted that for attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is not necessary that caste name itself is referred to. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in an offence falling under the Act by virtue of bar under Section 18 of the Act. The defacto complainant has given an explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. B.A.No.7888 of 2008 3 On hearing both sides, I do not find that the facts stated by petitioner are sufficient to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There is also a bar under Section 18 of the Act in granting anticipatory bail. Petitioner may seek his remedy before the proper forum in the ordinary course. The incident occurred as early as on 22.04.2008 and petitioner is not so far arrested. He is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac