IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6656 of 2007()
1. KILAKKAN @ THANKAN, RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.VISHNU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.6656 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations for offences punishable inter alia under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely
innocent. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to
the petitioner.
2. In the light of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this court is not
jurisdictionally competent to grant anticipatory bail. There is no
contention before me that the allegation does not constitute an
offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In such event, of course, it is
possible to contemplate the invocation of powers under Section
438 Cr.P.C notwithstanding the fact that Section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act finds a place in the F.I.R.
B.A.No.6656/07 2
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits
that there may at least be a direction to the learned Magistrate
to consider the application for regular bail on merits, in
accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioner
apprehends that the learned Magistrate may not consider the
application for regular bail to be filed by the petitioner when he
surrenders because the offence is triable exclusively by a
Special/Sessions court under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This court
has time and again clarified in Ali v. State of Kerala [2000(2) KLT
280, Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3) KLT 452, Krishnakumar v.
State of Kerala [20005(1) KLD(Cri.)42] and P.P.Kader v. State of
Kerala [2005(1) KLD(Cri.)250] that the mere fact that the offence
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is triable by a Special/Sessions court under
Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not justify the learned
Magistrate abdicating his jurisdiction under Section 437 Cr.P.C.
The learned Magistrate is bound to consider the application for
bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C on merits, in accordance with law
and expeditiously.
B.A.No.6656/07 3
4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer
or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case,
the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders
on merits in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date
of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.6656/07 4
B.A.No.6656/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007