IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2007 / 12TH ASWINA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 5941 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.225/07 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. RATHEESH,,S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 27, RATHEESH BHAVAN, MANAVARI, ANAVOOR P.O. NEYYATTINKARA. 2. ABHILASH,S/O. UNNIKRISHANAN NAIR, AGED 19,ABHILASH BHAVAN, AIKKOD THOTTATHIL VEEDU,KORANAM KODU, KOTTAKKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VELLARADA POLICE STATION, VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.5941 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2007 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the S.C/S.T P.A Act). There is an allegation that the petitioners had insulted and humiliated the defacto complainant with the use of words referring to the scheduled caste to which the defacto complainant belongs. 2. In view of Section 18 of the S.C/S.T P.A Act, this Court is jurisdictionally not competent to grant anticipatory bail in a case where the allegations are raised under Section 3 of the S.C/S.T P.A Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations, even if accepted in toto, cannot amount to any offence punishable under Section 3 of the S.C/S.T P.A Act. If that be so, certainly the bar of Section 18 of the S.C/S.T P.A Act will not apply. I have been taken through the averment in the F.I statement. I have gone through the averments in the F.I statement. I am unable to find any merit in the contention that the allegations, even if accepted, will not amount to any offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C/S.T P.A Act. B.A.No.5941 of 2007 2 At this stage, no further and more detailed consideration appears to be necessary. There is certainly specific allegation that at a public place, the defacto complainant was assaulted and was intentionally insulted and humiliated by the petitioners. 3. I make it clear that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the contention raised. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners assuming that the allegations do not constitute any offence under Section 3 of the S.C/S.T P.A Act. 4. This Court has time and again repeated in Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT 280], Shanu v. State of Kerala [200(3) KLT 452], Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.42)] and P.P.Kader v. State of Kerala [2005(1) KLD (Cri.250)] that the mere fact that an offence under Section 3 of the S.C/S.T P.A Act is triable by a Court of Session will not justify abdication of jurisdiction by the Magistrates under Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioners to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. If the petitioners surrender before the learned Magistrate after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case and apply for bail, the learned Magistrate, I observe, must dispose of such B.A.No.5941 of 2007 3 application for bail on merits, in accordance with law, in the light of the above referred decisions and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-