IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6094 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRMP.2083/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.192/2009 OF MANARCADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- JOHNYKUTTY MAMMEN, S/O.LATE MAMMEN, KURISHUNKAL HOUSE, AMAYANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6094 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 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.192/2009 of Manarcadu Police Station, Kottayam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The de facto complainant stood for election in Areeparambu Service Co-operative Bank in the reservation quota of Scheduled castes. There was a dispute regarding the acceptance of nomination of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner objected to the acceptance of nomination of the de facto complainant on the ground that the de facto complainant was indebted to the Bank. It is stated that the de facto complainant explained the position and stated that debts due from the scheduled caste members were written off by the Government. It is alleged that at that time, B.A. No. 6094/2009 2 the petitioner made a statement, which according to the de facto complainant would attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the Case Diary. 5. Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in respect of an offence under the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In Shanu Vs. State of Kerala [2000(3) K.L.T. 452], it was held that the Magistrate has power to grant bail to an accused in cases coming under Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that case, the High Court directed the learned Magistrate to grant bail to the accused. The decision in Shanu's case was followed in B.A. No. 789/2005 and also in Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. M.C. No.3036/2004). In Ali Vs. State of Kerala [2000(2) K.L.T.280], it was held that there is no bar for the Magistrate to B.A. No. 6094/2009 3 grant bail in such cases on the basis of the general principles enunciated in Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the direction as given in Shanu's Case would be appropriate. Accordingly, the Bail Application is disposed of directing the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam to grant bail to the petitioner, in case the petitioner appears before that court, within a period of ten days from today and moves an application for bail. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm