IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3249 of 2010() ----------------------------------- (CRIME NO.452/10 VATAKARA POLICE STATION ) ........................................ PETITIONER(S): /ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- FAIZAL, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 25, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM, THIRUVALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3249 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 308 r/w 149 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with three others intercepted a motor cycle in which defacto complainant was travelling and they assaulted defacto complainant using iron rod, sword like weapon etc. and inflicted injuries on him. 4th accused has also participated in the offence. A1 to A3 also humiliated defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste by calling his caste name. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is teacher and as per annexure A1 certificate issued by headmaster he was present in the school on the date and time of the incident which occurred on 13.04.2010 at 12.20pm. Petitioner was working in the school on that day. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor B.A. No.3249/10 2 submitted that allegations are made by defacto complainant that several persons were involved in the offence, but on investigation it is revealed that A1 to A3 are the persons who actually committed the offence. All other accused are deleted from the accused's array and sections are also altered. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case involved offence u/s.3 of SC/ST Act. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through annexure A1, I find that the said certificate is not sufficient to show that petitioner was present in the school or absent at the scene of occurrence. Specific allegations are made against the petitioner that he committed offence under section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (P.A) Act. In the light of sec.18 of said Act, there is a bar in granting anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that petitioner is required for the purpose of recovery of weapon allegedly used by him and I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.