IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3265 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.3361/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.181/08 OF THE VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JOSHY,S/O PAULOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOLEL HOUSE, PANMKUTTY KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SIVADAS, S/O SIVARAMAN, KAZHUVELIPADOM, VEEDU, PARAMKUTTY KARA KONNATHADI VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3265 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The alleged incident took place on 29/6/08; but the crime is seen registered long later on 24/7/08. The petitioner has a case that the allegations under Sec.3 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been raised vexatiously with malicious intent and on account of political animosity. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. or at least to protect the interests of the petitioner who does not, under law, have the option of approaching the superior courts for grant of Crl.M.C. No. 3265 of 2008 -: 2 :- anticipatory bail. The petitioner, in fact, moved the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. But the said application was dismissed vide Annexure-A3 order, it is submitted. 2. The learned counsel prays that the F.I.R. may be quashed on the ground that the allegations are not correct. At the moment and with the available inputs, while exercising the discretion under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., it is impossible for this Court to come to any authentic conclusions about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that it is not possible to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 3. Considering the nature of the allegations, the petitioner cannot move the superior courts for anticipatory bail in view of Sec.18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. He must then seek regular bail. The apprehension of the petitioner that since the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions under Sec.14 Crl.M.C. No. 3265 of 2008 -: 3 :- of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the learned Magistrate may not consider the application for bail on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and favouably is found to be without any substance. 4. It is by now trite and this Court has repeated the said proposition in the decisions reported in Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) K.L.T. 280); Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) K.L.T. 452); Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 250) that notwithstanding the fact that the offences are triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate is obliged to consider the application for bail on merits. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be served eminently by issue of a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on his surrender before the learned Magistrate – of course, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor- in- charge, expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself and in the light of the decisions referred above. Crl.M.C. No. 3265 of 2008 -: 4 :- 3. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above specific observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge