IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 643 of 2009() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2008 IN IA.212/2008 IN OS.26/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA CRIME NO.194/2008 OF KALLOORKADU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. MANI ULAHANNAN, VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE THAZHUVAMKUNNU KARA, KALLORKADU, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOHNY, S/O.ULAHANNAN, VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE THAZHUVAMKUNNU KARA, KALLOORKADU, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLOORKADU POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.643 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(v), (x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) read with 294(b) and 506(1) and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners and the defacto complainant are having a property dispute and because of this, there arose an enimity. On the date of occurrence, petitioners allegedly insulted the defacto complainant with intention to humiliate her. The defacto complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste whereas, petitioners are not members of the Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe and thereby they committed the offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a suit was filed in the year 2006 by petitioners against the defacto complainant because of a dispute in respect of a path way and enimity exists between the parties. The case is falsely foisted against petitioners and an incident has not occurred, as B.A.No.643 of 2009 2 alleged. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that because of the enimity of the petitioners towards defacto complainant in connection with the property dispute, petitioners have acted in the manner alleged in the complaint, which constitute offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. There is a bar under Section 18 of the Act to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, this petition is opposed. On hearing both sides, I find that there is only bare assertion that the incident did not occur. There are materials in the case diary to show that petitioners have acted prima facie in violation of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and hence, by virtue of bar under Section 18 of the Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest B.A.No.643 of 2009 3 them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac