IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2111 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.141/2008 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- RAFEEQUE, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.M.ABOOBACKER, HAJIMUKKU, P.O.PADIOTTUCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE S.H.O. PERINGOME. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2111 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 376 I.P.C and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the de facto complainant, a woman aged about 17 years belonging to a scheduled caste community. It is alleged that the said complainant was in love with the petitioner for a period of about one year and four months. She was allegedly raped. She became pregnant. There were discussions and mediation by the relatives. There was assurance that the petitioner shall marry the said complainant; but later she came to know that violating the said agreement/undertaking the petitioner was getting ready to marry another woman on 27/4/2008. When she raised objections and questioned him, he allegedly insulted her by making derogatory remarks about the community to which she belongs. He denied responsibility for the paternity. He threatened that if she would repeat the allegations, he would do away with her. It is, in these circumstances, that the complaint has been filed. Crl.M.C.No.2111/08 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False allegations are raised against him with vexatious intent. Reading of the complaint must itself persuade the court to doubt and suspect the bona fides of the complainant. The petitioner is in a difficult situation. Because an allegation under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is raised, the petitioner cannot seek anticipatory bail. The petitioner is in these circumstances willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate; but he apprehends that merely because false and vexatious allegations are raised of sessions offences, the learned Magistrate may not consider his application for bail on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioner, therefore, prays that appropriate directions may be issued. 3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. I have no reason to assume that any Magistrate would dismiss an application for bail on the sole ground that the offences are triable by a court of Session. This court has time and again repeated that merely because an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is alleged, the learned Magistrate cannot abdicate his jurisdiction under Section 437 Crl.M.C.No.2111/08 3 Cr.P.C and must consider the application for bail on merits. In the case of all sessions offences also the discretion of the Magistrate subject to the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C to grant bail is not taken away. I need, in these circumstances, only mention that I expect the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously if the petitioner is arrested and produced or surrenders before the learned Magistrate. No further or specific directions need be issued. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003 (1)KLT 339]. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not comply with the requirements of law and pass orders on the bail application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 4. This Crl.MC is dismissed but with the above specific observations. 5. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate along with the bail application. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2111/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2111/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007