IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 625 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 15/08 OF THENHIPPALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------ 1. KEEDAKKAT HASSAN, S/O. AHAMMAD, PERUMCHERY HOUSE, P.O. PUTHOORPALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KEEDAKKAT MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O. AHAMMAD, PERUMCHERY HOUSE, P.O. PUTHOORPALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. K.T. MOHAMMADKUTTY, S/O. KUNHARAMU HAJI, DARUNNOOR HOUSE, P.O. KUMMINIPARAMBA, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENHIPPALAM POLICE STATION. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 625 OF 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3. Initially they faced allegations under section 354 IPC. Later, it has been reported to Court that the offences under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST(PA) Act has been revealed. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in so far as the 3rd petitioner/accused is concerned, he is not pressing the application as the said petitioner has already surrendered before the learned Magistrate and has been enlarged on bail. 3. The allegations presently raised are under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST(PA) Act. Section 18 of the SC and ST(PA) Act is a clear bar against the claim for anticipatory bail BA.625/08 : 2 : by petitioners 1 and 2. The criminal court is jurisdictionally incompetent to grant anticipatory bail when the allegations are raised under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST(PA) Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that they may unnecessarily be kept in custody and detained by the learned Magistrate as the offence alleged is triable exclusively by a court of sessions. 5. This Court has time and again repeated that the mere fact that the offence is triable by a court of sessions will not take away the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under section 437 Cr.P.C. to pass appropriate orders in the application for bail. The Magistrate cannot avoid the responsibility merely because the offence alleged is triable by a court of sessions. 6. I am satisfied that in any view of the matter, under section 18 of the SC and ST(PA) Act, the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail. However, I am satisfied that the BA.625/08 : 3 : learned Magistrate can be directed to consider the bail application to be filed by the petitioners on their arrest/surrender in accordance with law - expeditiously. This Court has reiterated the position of law in many decisions. [See the decisions Ali Vs. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), Shanu Vs. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD(Cri) 42), and P.P.Kader Vs. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLD (Cri) 250) ]. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed with the specific observation that if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks