IMPORTANT POINTS:
No jurisdiction and competence for this Court to consider the plea for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of those applicants herein, who do not belong to SC/ST. However, the said bar under Secs. 18 and 18A would apply only when the bail plea is made in terms of Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., ie. for pre-arrest bail/ anticipatory bail-Bar cannot have any application when the bail plea is made at the stage of Secs.437 of 439 of the Cr.P.C. At that stage, the competent special court notified to deal with SC/ST cases will have the jurisdiction to consider such bail pleas on merits-The bail court concerned will have jurisdiction and obligation to consider the bail plea on merits and such jurisdiction under Secs. 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C. is not in any manner fettered or barred on account of the provisions contained in Secs.18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act. This Court has only held that there is no jurisdiction to consider the anticipatory bail plea under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2019 rendered by the Sessions Court, Thrissur, in Crl.M.C.No. 1570/2019, dismissing the plea of the appellants herein for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 404/2019 of Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur, they have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal under Sec.14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, [SC/ST POA Act, 1989] as amended. The appellants herein have been arrayed as the accused persons in the above Crime No. 404/2019 of Cherpu Police Station, which has been registered for offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST POA Act, 1989 and Secs.143, 147 and 149 of the I.P.C., on the basis of the first information conveyed through the petition dated 27.7.2019 submitted by the 2nd respondent lady defacto complainant.

2. The prosecution case in short is as follows:

That the 2nd respondent lady defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) community and that she has been duly elected as the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing the Nattika Constituency, which is under scheduled caste representation. That the 2nd respondent on 27.7.2019 had conducted a sit-in dharna at the Civil Station, Thrissur, to protest against the inaction and negligence on the part of the PWD authorities in not repairing the roads, which were in a extremely bad condition inasmuch as the PWD authorities have not even bothered and not even taken care to fill up the various potholes in the PWD roads and when she got assurance that immediate remedial measures would be taken by the Departmental authorities and after discussion with the authorities, she had left the venue of the sit-in dharna at about 1.30 p.m. on that day. That after she had left the scene, the accused persons, who are Youth Congress activists, have come to the same venue and made a big scene by washing the place with cow dung water where the 2nd respondent MLA had sat for the sit-in dharna and then had cleaned it with broom sticks and raised slogans against her and that the accused persons have done the abovesaid act of pouring cow-dung water in the place where she had sat earlier and cleaned it with broom stick to denigrate her by causing ill-will against her who is a member of the scheduled caste community. Further it is stated that if the accused persons show this kind of ill-will, even as against the person who is an MLA, then it shows the deplorable condition of mind set of such people and that such an action is a matter of great shame to a State like Kerala which is said to be highly advanced in literacy and culture. It is on this basis that the abovesaid FIR has been registered for offences punishable under Sec. 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST POA Act, 1989 and Sec. 143, 147, read with Sec. 149 of the I.P.C.

3. The appellants herein moved for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. by filing Crl.M.C.No. 1570/2019 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur and the said Court has taken the view as per the impugned order dated 19.8.2019 that since a prima facie case is made out as against the accused persons under Sec. 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST POA Act, 1989 as amended, the said court is thus not having jurisdiction and competence to consider the plea of grant of anticipatory bail on merits in view of the statutory bar engrafted in Sec.18 and Sec.18A of the abovesaid Act. It is this rejection order rendered on 19.8.2019 that is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.

4. Heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned Senior Counsel instructed Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.P.Narayanan, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State and Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned Amicus Curiae.

5. At the outset, it has to be noted that the appellants have taken up a specific plea that he 1st and 10th appellants herein belong to scheduled caste community and that therefore, the abovesaid offence alleged under SC/ST POA Act, 1989, as amended, cannot be pressed