IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4303 of 2008() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.329/2008 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED : --------------------------------- JOSHI.K.L, AGED 41, JOJO FABRICS, S/O.KANJJIRATHINGAL LAZAR, VENKITANGU. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4303 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 341 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The petitioner allegedly trespassed into the compound of the defacto complainant and assaulted her when she tried to interfere in the quarrel between her husband and petitioner. The petitioner allegedly restrained her wrongfully and beat her with hand. He also made some reference about the caste and hence, a crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by her under Sections 447, 341 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had entrusted defacto complainant's husband with the work of construction of a compound wall and since the work was not completed satisfactorily, there was some quarrel between the two and some incident had happened. But it is not correct to say that any offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST(PA) Act is BA No.4303/2008 2 committed. The provision quoted relates to outraging of modesty of a woman belonging to such caste/tribe by using criminal force etc. But a reading of the FI statement will reveal that the alleged statement made by the petitioner is not directed against the defacto complainant who is the woman, it is submitted. The relevant incriminating statement does not refer to any caste also, it is submitted. In the FI statement, there is absolutely nothing to make out commission an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act against defacto complainant, is the submission. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that in view of Section 18 of the SC/ST(PA) Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a crime registered under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is some force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially on going through the contends of the First Information Statement. The question is not whether a crime is registered under any of the provisions under the SC/ST (PA) Act or not. For the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act to apply, the BA No.4303/2008 3 court must be satisfied that an offence under the SC/ST (PA) Act is prima facie committed. The mere quoting of a provision will not be sufficient to interfere with the liberty of a citizen. The provisions of the Act are not intended to be misused with a view to refuse anticipatory bail. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, since it is likely that he will be arrested and detained since the provision under SC/ST (PA) Act is quoted. Hence, the following order is passed: The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer and and when directed. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl