IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5054 of 2009()
1. M.K.MAHAROOF, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 5054 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009
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.87/2009 of Thirunelly Police
Station, Wynad.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The petitioner is the Tribal Extension Officer of
Thirunelly. The defacto complainant is the president of
Thirunelly Grama Panchayath. The allegation is that on
29/7/2009, the Panchayath Committee met. There was an
allegation that the Tribal Extension Officer was not helpful in
properly implementing the projects for the welfare of the
Tribals. The Tribal Extension Officer was called to the meeting
and matters were explained to him. The petitioner, who is the
Tribal Extension Officer, is alleged to have replied that he was
not bound to implement the projects of the Panchayath and
that he was bound to implement only the projects of the
B.A. No. 5054/2009
2
Government. It is alleged that the defacto complainant further
explained the duty of the Tribal Extension Officer to implement
the decision of the Panchayath. It is alleged that at that time, the
petitioner insulted the defacto complainant by calling his caste
name.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
on 29/7/2009, several panchayath members and members of the
general public rushed to the office of the Tribal Extension Officer
and locked the petitioner in his office room. He was not allowed
to go out. Thereafter he was beaten up. The petitioner was
admitted in the hospital on 29/7/2009 and he was discharged
from the hospital on 30/7/2009. According to the petitioner, the
present case was foisted against him in order to escape from the
case of attack against him and also to see that the petitioner
does not get bail.
5. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
10/9/2009, the following order was passed:
“After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of
the view that before disposing of the Bail application, it
B.A. No. 5054/2009
3is necessary to permit the petitioner to appear before
the Police on 23rd and 24th September, 2009 at 9 A.M.
Post on 29/9/2009.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
the petitioner will not be arrested till then.”
6. It is submitted that the petitioner has complied with
the direction issued by this Court.
7. Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that no application under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be
entertained in respect of an offence allegedly committed under
the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that in such cases, this Court had occasion
to direct the learned Magistrate to grant bail. In Shanu Vs.
State of Kerala [2000(3) K.L.T. 452], it was held that the
Magistrate has power to grant bail to an accused in cases under
Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act . In that
case, High Court directed the Magistrate to grant bail. Shanu’s
B.A. No. 5054/2009
4
case was followed in B.A. No. 789/2005 and also in
Krishnakumar Vs. State of Kerala (Crl. M.C. No.3036/2004). In
Ali Vs. State of Kerala [2000(2) K.L.T.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 Vs. State of Kerala
[2001(1) K.L.T.22], this Court held that there is no bar under
Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate
to grant bail in cases involving a Session offence.
8. Taking into account the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a direction can
be issued to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Mananthavady to grant bail to the petitioner. I do so. The
petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a
period of two weeks and move for bail.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm