IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3293 of 2008()
1. SWARAJ.C.K, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
2. DILEEP.T., S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS,
3. VIPIN KUMAR V., S/O REVEENDRAN,
4. SURESH KUMAR, S/O MUTHU NAIR,
5. SHIBU T.S.,S/O KUNHIRAMAN,
6. PRASANTH P, S/O VIJAYAN NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3293 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered
alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3(1)(xi) of
the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. A crime has been registered. Investigation is
in progress. The petitioners have not been arrested so far.
They apprehend imminent arrest.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the petitioners are absolutely innocent. False and vexatious
allegations have been raised against them under Sec.3(1)(xi) of
the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. All other offences are bailable offences.
3. Considering the nature of the allegations, the
petitioners cannot move the superior courts for anticipatory
Crl.M.C. No.3293 of 2008 -: 2 :-
bail in view of Sec.18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners are willing to
surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
But they apprehend that the offence being the one triable
exclusively by a Special Judge/Sessions Court under Sec.14 of
the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, the learned Magistrate may not consider their applications
for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously
and favourably. In these circumstances, it is prayed that
appropriate directions may be issued under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
4. I find no merit in the apprehension aired by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. In the decision reported in Alice
George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT
339) sufficient general directions on this aspect have already
been issued to ensure expeditious consideration of an application
for regular bail filed by a person who chooses to surrender
before the learned Magistrate. No special or specific directions
are necessary.
5. It is by now trite and this Court has repeated the said
proposition in the decisions reported in Ali v. State of Kerala
(2000 (2) K.L.T. 280); Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3)
K.L.T. 452); Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D.
Crl.M.C. No.3293 of 2008 -: 3 :-
(Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D.
(Cri) 250) that notwithstanding the fact that the offences are
triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate is obliged to
consider the application for bail on merits. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the interests of
justice will be served eminently by issue of a direction to the
learned Magistrate to consider the applications for bail to be
filed by the petitioners on their surrender before the learned
Magistrate – of course, after giving sufficient prior notice to the
Prosecutor-in- charge, expeditiously – on the date of surrender
itself and in the light of the decisions referred above.
5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with
the above specific observations/directions.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge