IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4529 of 2009 CRIME NO.224 OF 2009 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- GIREESH, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, ERACHIKKATTIL, PALLATHERI P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4529 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 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 accused in Crime No.224 of 2009 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The de facto complainant is the father of the victim. It is alleged that the victim girl and the petitioner were in love for the last four years and, in that relationship, a child was born. The child is no more. It is stated in the First Information Statement that the petitioner promised to marry the girl, but he did not keep up his word. B.A. NO. 4529 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. 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 accused of a non- bailable offence or in respect of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. B.A. NO. 4529 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 6. 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, Palakkad 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/