IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6341 of 2009()
1. SHAMEER ALI, S/O.SULAIMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/11/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 6341 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 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. 449/2009 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad
District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the Case Diary.
4. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that an application
under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
maintainable in a case where an offence under the Act is alleged.
In the present case, I am satisfied, prima faice, that there are
materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
B.A. No. 6341 of 2009 2
Prima facie, I am not satisfied that no case is made out against
the petitioner so as to get over the rigour under Section 18 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
mother of the defacto complainant belongs to Ezhava community
and therefore the defacto complainant cannot be treated as a
member of the Scheduled Caste so as to attract the provisions of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. The Tahsildar, Palakkad has issued a certificate
stating that on the basis of enquiry, it was revealed that Anil
Kumar, the defacto complainant, belongs to Hindu Cheruman
S.C. community. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the
contention of the petitioner that the defacto complainant does
not belong to a Scheduled Caste.
6. The learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the
application for Anticipatory Bail filed by the petitioner has
observed that the Magistrate is competent to grant bail in a case
where the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
B.A. No. 6341 of 2009 3
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is alleged. The learned
Sessions Judge has relied on the decisions of this court in Ali Vs.
State of Kerala 2000(2) KLT 280 and Shanu Vs. State of
Kerala 2000(3) KLT 452.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not
think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted
to the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln