IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6650 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO1631/2011 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED No.1 : -------------------------- SHUGU C.THOMAS, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALAYAPURAM, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT: COMPLAIANANT --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6651 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.Nos.6650 & 6651 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 ORDER These are applications filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1631 of 2011 of Kottarakkara Police Station under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Bail Application No.6650 of 2011 is filed by accused No.1 and Bail Application No.6651 of 2011 is filed by accused No.2, who is none other than the paternal uncle of accused No.1. 3. The prosecution case is that on 05/07/2011, two incidents took place in which the de facto complainant and his son were called by their Caste name. According to the de facto complainant, he belongs to Scheduled Caste. 4. It is stated that the first accused is a practising lawyer. The second accused is his paternal uncle who is aged 75 years. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant and his son do not belong to Scheduled Caste and they are Christians. It is submitted that Bail Appln.Nos.6650 & 6651/2011 : 2 : originally they were Hindus and later they were converted into Christianity. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after such conversion they do not belong to Scheduled Caste. The offences alleged against the accused under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, except the offence under Section 452 are bailable. 5. The offence alleged against the petitioners includes an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), this Court held that the Magistrate has got power to grant bail to the accused even in cases under clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that case, the learned Magistrate was directed to grant bail to the accused. The decision in Shanu's case was followed by another learned single Judge in 2005 (1) KLD 250 (B.A.No.789 of 2005) and in 2005 KHC 2058 (Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala). In Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), it was held that there is no bar for the Magistrate for granting bail in such cases on the basis of the general principles enunciated in Bail Appln.Nos.6650 & 6651/2011 : 3 : Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22), it was held that Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not create an absolute bar on the Magistrate to the grant of bail to persons accused of a non-bailable offence or in respect of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 6. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Bail Application can be disposed of by directing the petitioners to appear before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, having jurisdiction within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioners on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj