High Court Kerala High Court

Abhed Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abhed Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7477 of 2009()


1. ABHED KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :19/01/2010

 O R D E R
                           K.T.SANKARAN, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------
                       B.A. NO. 7477 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010


                                 O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in

Crime No.464 of 2009 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 354, 452 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3

(1)(viii) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court

of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 7.12.2009

in respect of the alleged incident on 16.10.2009. The complaint was

forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the crime was registered

for the aforesaid offences on 8.12.2009.

B.A. NO. 7477 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

4. The accused was a last grade servant in the Court of the

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – IV (mobile),

Thiruvananthapuram. While forwarding the complaint to the police,

the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Sub Inspector of Police to

file an affidavit as to why no crime was registered on the basis of the

petition alleged to have been submitted by the de facto complainant.

5. The de facto complainant stated that she belongs to a

scheduled caste. It is alleged that on 16.10.2009 at 9.30 PM, the

petitioner forcefully entered into the house of the de facto

complainant and attacked the mother of the de facto complainant.

The mother of the de facto complainant sustained injuries. It is also

alleged that the petitioner caught hold of the hands of the de facto

complainant.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

16.10.2009, the petitioner was attacked by Ramesh and Sivaprasad,

the brothers of the de facto complainant, as well as by one Rajan

and the petitioner sustained injuries on his head, eyebrow and other

parts of the body. Crime No.387 of 2007 was registered in respect

of that incident under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) and 308

B.A. NO. 7477 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against Rajesh,

Sivaprasad and Rajan. After completing investigation, charge sheet

was also filed in that case.

7. I have gone through the case diary in Crime No.464 of

2009. No independent witness has supported the case put forward

by the de facto complainant. The wound certificate to show that the

mother of the de facto complainant had sustained injuries is also not

seen in the case diary file.

8. The de facto complainant belongs to the carpenter

community (Asari). The father of the de facto complainant, who

passed away, belonged to a scheduled caste. The petitioner does

not belong to a scheduled caste.

9. On going through the case diary, it is seen that neither the

de facto complainant nor her mother disclosed to Rajesh and

Sivaprasad, the brothers of the de facto complainant, about the

incident on their reaching home during night. It is also not stated

that the mother of the de facto complainant was taken to the hospital

immediately after the incident. Why the incidents which took place

B.A. NO. 7477 OF 2009

:: 4 ::

on 16.10.2009 were not reported to the children of the injured

(brothers of the de facto complainant) is not disclosed. The

neighbours who were examined by the investigating officer did not

support the case put forward by the de facto complainant.

10. While dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, it is

not necessary to consider the merits of the case put forward by

either side and to arrive at any finding. At the same time, the

petitioner has raised a contention that the case was foisted against

him and the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been incorporated only to

see that he does not get bail from the Magistrate’s Court and that he

would be precluded from filing an application for anticipatory bail.

11. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that in respect of the

offences under the Act, Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure would not apply.

12. In Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), it was

held that the Magistrate has power to grant bail to the accused in a

B.A. NO. 7477 OF 2009

:: 5 ::

case under clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that

case, the High Court directed the Magistrate to grant bail to the

accused. The decision in Shanu’s case was followed in B.A.No.789

of 2005 and in Crl.M.C.No.3036 of 2004. In Ali v. State of Kerala

(2000 (2) KLT 280), this Court took the view that in cases of similar

nature, there is no bar to the Magistrate to exercise the power under

Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and grant bail.

13. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22) it was

held that the power under Section 437 can be exercised even in

cases where offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am

of the view that it is necessary to protect the interests of the

petitioner by passing an order to grant bail to him.

The Bail Application is disposed of as follows:

1) The petitioner shall surrender before the Court of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, within

two weeks and apply for bail.

B.A. NO. 7477 OF 2009

:: 6 ::

2) If the petitioner complies with the above direction, the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall grant bail to the

petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/