IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5861 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.333/2009 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WYNAD. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- VINOD K., S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, POST KOTTAYAM MALABAR, VIA.KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5861 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 333 of 2009 of Mananthavady Police Station, Wynad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 506(i) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. 3. The de facto complainant is an Adivasi girl. The petitioner is a friend of the husband of the de facto complainant's sister. The allegation is that on several occasions, the petitioner stayed in the house of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the accused committed the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and later he promised to marry her. On one occasion, the petitioner had taken a house on rent and took the girl with him and they B.A. No. 5861 / 2009 2 together resided in that house for more than one month. Even after that the petitioner did not marry her. The promise continued. The illiterate Adivasis believed the petitioner. The girl remains unmarried. It is alleged that the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been committed by the petitioner. 4. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in cases where the offences under the Act are alleged. 5. In the light of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am of the view that this Bail Application cannot be entertained. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm