IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5257 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.431/2011 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : -------------------------- RAJEESH @ KUTTAPPAN, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, 'RAJESH BHAVANAM', PERURKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.5257 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.431 of 2011 of the Puthoor Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1) (x) & (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The first accused is the husband of the de fact complainant. The first accused belongs to Hindu Thiyya community and the de facto complainant belongs to Hindu Pulaya community. They got acquainted with each other over mobile phone and later under peculiar circumstances their marriage was solemnized. After a few months, their relationship become strained and the de facto complainant went to her house. It is alleged that the accused persons meted out cruelty and called her by her Caste name and they also outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case Bail Appln.No.5257/2011 : 2 : diary. It is stated that accused No.1 surrendered before the Magistrate's court and he was granted regular bail. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioner include an offence 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 persons Bail Appln.No.5257/2011 : 3 : 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 disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottarakkara 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 skj