IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9973 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.17847/2011 CRIME NO.670 OF 2011 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DT. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PRAJITH.K.S,S/O.K.S.BHASKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS,RESIDING AT MANGOLI HOUSE, MOKAVOOR ROAD,KUNDUPARAMBA,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. BY P.P.SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.9973 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th 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 sole accused in Crime No.670 of 2011 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The defacto complainant was an employee of Bhaskar Gas Agency at West Hill, Kozhikode. A labour dispute was pending from 20th June, 2011 onwards with the management. There was a conciliation before the District Labour Officer. The accused represented the management in the said B.A.No. 9973 OF 2011 2 meeting. When the defacto complainant came out after the meeting, he asked the petitioner as to why he was dismissed. The petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, adding the caste name of the defacto complainant with the same. The defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's mother is the owner of the gas agency. A complaint was received from a customer against the defacto complainant. The matter was enquired into. The defacto complainant was placed under suspension. Show cause notice was issued to the defacto complainant. He absented himself unauthorizedly. A dispute was raised before the Labour Officer at the instance of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioner to harass and humiliate him and to wreak vengeance against him. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. B.A.No. 9973 OF 2011 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner appears before the Magistrate's Court, he would be remanded to judicial custody, since the offence includes an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is necessary to protect the interests of the petitioner. 7. The offences alleged against the petitioner 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 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 B.A.No. 9973 OF 2011 4 280), 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. 8. 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 Magistrate having jurisdiction 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. cms