IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2173 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.442/2010 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. .................... (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ADBUL KHADER AGED 54 YEARS, AL MANAMA HOUSE, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 2. R.AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 42 YEARS, CHINNU NIVAS, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 4. MUKHATHALA GOPINATHAN, CHARIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KIZHAVOOR CHERI, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2173 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 31st May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to prosecution, petitioners 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, criminally intimidated him and called his caste name with intention to humiliate him and thereby committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first accused is the Director of the company and an employee of first accused at Dubai had taken away huge money from first accused's company and left Dubai. The said employee, after coming to India, filed false complaint against petitioners before the Dy.S.P. and there was a conciliation talk, but the matter could not be settled. Thereafter, the present private complaint is filed, making false allegations. 4. Petitioners made a complaint to the I.G. of Police, stating that the allegations made against petitioners are false. An BA NO.2173/10 2 enquiry was conducted by the Dy.S.P., as per the orders of the I.G. and it was found that no such incident had happened. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the instructions received, an investigation was conducted into the crime and it was found that the incident, as alleged has taken place. It was also pointed out that defacto complainant was not an employee of first accused. It is also submitted that offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is involved in this case and there is a bar in granting anticipatory bail, under Section 18 of the said Act. 6. On hearing both sides and on considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that in a case involving offence under Section 3(1) of the Act, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act in granting anticipatory bail. I also take note of the fact that petitioner has no case that defacto complainant in this case is an employee of the first accused. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs