High Court Kerala High Court

Rafeeque vs The State Of Kerala Represented on 4 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Rafeeque vs The State Of Kerala Represented on 4 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2111 of 2008()


1. RAFEEQUE, AGED 28 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          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