High Court Kerala High Court

Vinod K. vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Vinod K. vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5861 of 2009()


1. VINOD K., S/O. KUNHIKANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :05/11/2009

 O R D E R
                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                   ---------------------------
                    B.A. No. 5861 of 2009
                ------------------------------------
          Dated this the 5th 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. 333 of 2009 of Mananthavady

Police Station, Wynad.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

under Sections 376, 506(i) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act.

3. The de facto complainant is an Adivasi girl. The

petitioner is a friend of the husband of the de facto

complainant’s sister. The allegation is that on several

occasions, the petitioner stayed in the house of the de facto

complainant. It is alleged that the accused committed the

offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and later

he promised to marry her. On one occasion, the petitioner had

taken a house on rent and took the girl with him and they

B.A. No. 5861 / 2009
2

together resided in that house for more than one month. Even

after that the petitioner did not marry her. The promise

continued. The illiterate Adivasis believed the petitioner. The girl

remains unmarried. It is alleged that the offences under the

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been committed by the

petitioner.

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 cases where the offences under the Act are

alleged.

5. In the light of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am of the view

that this Bail Application cannot be entertained.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm