IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 111 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.P.NO.87/07 OF J.F.C.M-III, PUNALUR : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED1 TO 5 ------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O. SIVARAMAN, PATHMAVALLY ESTATE, GRACING BLOCK WARD, VALACODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. MOHANAN KUMAR, S/O.SIVARAMAN PILLAI, PATHMAVALLY ESTATE, GRACING BLOCK WARD, VALACODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. PADMA KUMAR, S/O. SIVARAMAN PILLAI, PATHMAVALLY ESTATE, GRACING BLOCK WARD, VALACODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 4. SHAJIMON @ CHEENAMARAM SHAJI, S/O. MYTHEEN KUNJU, LAILAVILASAM VEEDU, KARAKKADU WARD, VALACODU VILLAGE. 5. NUJOOB @ VEERAPPAN PACHU, S/O. NAGOOR NEERAN RAWTHOOR, CHANDRAVILA PUTHEN VEETTIL, GRACING BLOCK WARD, VALACODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 6. THOMAS JOHN, S/O. JOHN, SHAJI BHAVAN, GRACING BLOCK WARD,VALACODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE PUNALUR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.111 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). The learned counsel for the petitioners was requested to explain how in the light of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, this application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. 2. It must also be seen that the apprehended arrest is in execution of processes issued by the court in a pending committal proceedings. A private complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate of offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3 of the Act. Processes have been issued and petitioners apprehend their imminent arrest. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. I find merit in the opposition. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. I find no reasons available in this case which can justify the grant of anticipatory bail notwithstanding the embargo under Section 18 of the Act. B.A.No.111 of 2008 2 4. However, I may hasten to observe that the mere fact that the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions is no reason for the learned Magistrate to abdicate his jurisdiction under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Application for bail to be filed by the petitioners must be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. This Court has time and again reiterated that the learned Magistrate is jurisdictionally competent to grant bail in a case where allegations are raised under Section 3 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions {see the decisions in Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280], Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452], Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.)42] and P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.)250]}. 5. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-