IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9628 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.733/2011 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, `THIRUVATHIRA', KANYARKUZHI, MITHRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.9628 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of December, 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.733 of 2011 of Pangode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 451, 506(i) & 509 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1) & (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19/09/2011 at 3 P.M. the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant in a drunken state and abused the de facto complainant and inmates of the house. It is also stated that the abusive words included those words added with Caste name of the de facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Crime No.732 of 2011 was registered at the instance of the petitioner under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 294(b) and Bail Appln.No.9628/2011 : 2 : 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code against several persons including the son of the de facto complainant and the present case was foisted only to escape from Crime No.732 of 2011. It is pointed out that though the incident allegedly took place on 19/09/2011, the F.I.R. was registered only on 21/09/2011 at 2 P.M. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. The case diary reveals that the de facto complainant and all the members of her family are activists of DHRM (Dalith Human Rights Movement) and that 12 members of DHRM, who are strangers, were available in the house of the de facto complainant. Some other incidents took place and the police came to the house of the de facto complainant just before the alleged incident. It is alleged that after the police returned from the place, the incident alleged in the present case took place. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioner only to see that he is put in jail for a few days. The learned counsel for the Bail Appln.No.9628/2011 : 3 : petitioner submitted that if the petitioner is arrested or if surrenders before the learned Magistrate, certainly he would be remanded to judicial custody only on the ground that the offence alleged is an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on a careful perusal of the case diary files, I am of the view that the interests of the petitioner should be safe guarded. 7. The offence alleged against the petitioner 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 Bail Appln.No.9628/2011 : 4 : 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 disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the court having jurisdiction within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate 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 skj