IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3590 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.107/2010 OF KALIYAR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- JINO SCARIA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SKARIA, KALIYAR KARA, EDAYODIYIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.J.JOSE(AEDAIODI) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, KALIYAR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3590 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST(PA) Act. According to prosecution, on 12/05/2010, at about 8 p.m, first and second accused went to the house of de facto complainant who is their friend. De facto complainant offered a seat and thereafter a quarrel occurred between first accused and de facto complainant. De facto complainant was assaulted by first and second accused, in furtherance of common intention. De facto complainant was abused in obscene language in public. Accused also insulted de facto complainant by calling his caste name in public view. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the FIS, there is absolutely no allegation that petitioner committed any over tact, but, petitioner's presence alone is revealed. De facto complainant has not alleged that he also assaulted him. It is also submitted that no offence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (PA) Act is involved in this case, as per the allegations made in FIS. The incident happened on 12/05/2010 and thereafter, office bearers of KPMS took up a protest against non inclusion of provision under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST(PA) Act, and therefore, B.A No.3590 OF 2010 2 the police was forced to include the said offence. A reading of FIS will reveal that de facto complainant had not made any such allegation to attract offence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST(PA) Act, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that no allegations were there in the FIS to disclose offence under the SC/ST(PA) Act. Though the offence is now included, the only allegation is that de facto complainant is a member of SC/ST and accused are not members of SC/ST. There is no allegation that they being not members of SC/ST committed the offence. It is also submitted that offence under SC/ST(PA) Act is included only on 06/06/2010 as per a report. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the various aspects discussed above, I find that all the offences alleged in this case except offence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST(PA) Act are bailabble. It also appears that petitioner has a strong and arguable case regarding involvement of offence under SC/ST(PA) Act. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. B.A No.3590 OF 2010 3 (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with any evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv