IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10045 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRIME NO.1089/2011 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED : --------------------- T.K. NARAYANAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, SREEPADAM (H), MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., VELAPAYA ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.10045 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1089 of 2011 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- On 26/11/2011 at about 12 noon, the de facto complainant, a member of the Thekkumkara Panchayat went to the office of the President of the Panchayat. At that time, the Secretary of the Panchayat (petitioner/accused) was also available in that room. The de facto complainant asked why the Secretary was taking decisions without consulting with others. The Secretary did not like the same and he abused the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the de facto complainant Bail Appln.No.10045/2011 : 2 : met the Secretary at his cabin and repeated the same grievance. At that time, the Secretary (accused) pushed the de facto complainant and abused him filthy language and called the de facto complainant by his caste name. The de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant in the present case attacked the petitioner while he was discharging his official duty. He sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital. Crime No.1088 of 2011 was registered at Wadakkanchery Police Station against the de facto complainant in the present case for the offences under Sections 332, 506(i), 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present crime was registered only as a counter blast to Crime No.1088 of 2011. 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner appears before the Magistrate's Court, he would certainly be remanded to judicial custody as the case involves an offence exclusively triable by Bail Appln.No.10045/2011 : 3 : the Court of Sessions. After having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the case diary, I am of the view that it is necessary to protect the interests of the petitioner. 6. The offence alleged against the petitioner includes 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 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 Bail Appln.No.10045/2011 : 4 : 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. 7. 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 the petitioner to appear before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery, within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj