IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5777 of 2011 CRIME NO.423 OF 2010 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPIZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. RAJAPPAN @ UNNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PANAYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.XX, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, MUHAMMA.P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. KARUNAKARAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, MASHUKULANGARA HOUSE, WARD NO.XXI, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, MUHAMMA.P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. ANEESH, S/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 20 YEARS, PANAYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.XX, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, MUHAMMA.P.O., CHERTHALA. 4. REMANAN, S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, THAKIDIVELIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.I, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, MUHAMMA.P.O., CHERTHALA. 5. SURENDRAN @ PAKKI, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, THAKIDIVELIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.I, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, MUHAMMA.P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Application NO. 5777 OF 2011 B ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners stated in the Bail Application that they are the accused persons in Crime No.423 of 2010 of Muhamma Police Station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the names of petitioners 3 and 5 were deleted from the party array in the crime. As of now, the first petitioner is accused No.1, second petitioner is accused No.2 and the fourth petitioner is accused No.3 in the crime. 2. Originally, the offences alleged were under Sections 143, 146, 147, 149, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Later, on deletion of two persons from the party array, it is submitted that Sections 143, 146, 147 and 149 were deleted from the Sections of offence. B.A. NO. 5777 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. The allegation is that on 27.6.2010, the accused persons went near the house of the de facto complainant and abused him by calling his caste name and attacked him and caused injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 27.6.2010 at 5.45 P.M., the de facto complainant, his father and brother assaulted the first accused in the present case with granite stone and caused injuries on him. Crime No.422 of 2010 of Muhamma Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the present crime was registered as a counter blast to the crime registered against the de facto complainant herein and others. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioners 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 B.A. NO. 5777 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 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. 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 petitioners 1, 2 and 4 to appear before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall B.A. NO. 5777 OF 2011 :: 4 :: grant bail to the petitioners on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/