IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6349 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.443 OF 2011 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- CHACKO, AGED 69 YEARS,S/O.MATHAN, PULIKKATHOTTIYIL HOUSE,PEROOR,ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEVKUMAR.K.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- DY.S.P OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031. BY P.P.SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.6349 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.443 of 2011 of Ettumanoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7.5.2011, the accused restrained the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language, and also insulted him by calling his caste name. It is stated that the defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. B.A. No.6349 OF 2011 2 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. I have perused the case diary. The First Information Statement shows that the defacto complainant was elected as the Secretary of the Karshaka Samithy. Earlier, the accused was the Secretary of the Samithy. Last year, there was a dispute regarding the use of the harvesting machine in the paddy fields. It is alleged that on account of the same, the accused committed the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. 6. 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 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 B.A. No.6349 OF 2011 3 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. 7. 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 Magistrate concerned and move for regular bail within a period of two weeks. 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. B.A. No.6349 OF 2011 4 The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms