IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7960 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.422 OF 2011 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RAJESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, KARICHAL, PULLUVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY P.P.SRI.T.K.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No. 7960 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November , 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.422 of 2011 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3.The alleged incident was on 27.8.2011. First Information Report was registered on 31.8.2011. It is clear from the First Information Statement that the defacto complainant had not gone to the hospital for any treatment. The allegation is that the accused attacked the defacto B.A.No. 7960 OF 2011 2 complainant and abused him, calling the caste name of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 5. The offences alleged include an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 18 of the Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to protect the interests of the petitioner. If the petitioner were to appear before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted that he will be remanded to judicial custody as the offence involves a sessions offence. 7. The offences alleged against the petitioner include an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In Shanu v. State of B.A.No. 7960 OF 2011 3 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 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. 8. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Bail Application can be B.A.No. 7960 OF 2011 4 disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate concerned within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the court shall grant bail to the petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE cms