SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13127

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ARUN RAJ
– Appellant
Versus

STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1375 2022



Advocates:
K.DILIP, P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN, SRI.G.SUDHEER, SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under the SC/ST Act when a prima facie case is established, reaffirming legal provisions that protect vulnerable communities.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - SC/ST Act - Sections 18, 18A - The court highlighted the bar against granting anticipatory bail under sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act when a prima facie case is established. This interpretation influenced the dismissal of the bail applications.

Fact of the Case:

Appellants, accused of multiple offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act, sought anticipatory bail claiming wrongful allegations. Prosecution detailed assaults against a member of the Scheduled Caste community, relying on complaints and injuries sustained during the incidents.

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of committing offences under the SC/ST Act, which includes specific provisions that bar such grants when there is a prima facie case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that under the SC/ST Act, especially sections 18 and 18A, anticipatory bail cannot be granted when a prima facie case exists. This aligns with interpretations established in prior case law.

Final Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed.

COMMON JUDGMENT

IN Crl.APPEAL Nos.1357/2022, 1375/2022, 1377/2022 AND 1378/2022 Dated, this the 19th January, 2023 Crl.Appeal.No.1357/2022 is an appeal filed under Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as, 'SC/ST Act' for short). The appellants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.743/22 of Thenhipalam Police Station, where they alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120A, 298, 324, 352, 308 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They impugn common order in Crl.M.P. Nos.1754/2022, 1755/2022 and 1782/2022 dated 05.12.2022 on the files of the learned Special Judge, under the SC/ST Special Court, Manjeri.

2. The prosecution case in Crime No.743/2022 in short, is as under:

The appellants herein, who do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, on 28.08.2022 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community, called his caste name and abused. Apart from that, they stabbed the defacto complainant with a knife, when the same was defended by the friend of the defacto complainant, Sarathlal, the accused beat the defacto complainant with a beer bottle and also attempted to stab the friend of the defacto complainant with a knife, when one Jijish and warded off, the same caused injury on the nose of Sarathlal. This is the base on prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

3. Crl.Appeal Nos.1375/2022, 1377/2022 and

1378/2022 are at the instance of the appellants 1, 2, 3 and 4 (they are the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.1357/2022). The appellants are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.847/2022 of Tirurangadi Police Station, where they alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120A, 298, 324, 325, 354, 451 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution allegation herein is that due to animosity towards the defacto complainant on the premise that he had reported the drug sale of the accused before the police, on 01.08.2022, the 1st accused abused the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community. Thereafter, at 6:00 p.m., on 28.08.2022, accused Nos.1 to 4, who do not belong to Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribes community, criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant holding knife and beer bottles. Thereafter, they abused the wife of the defacto complainant by calling her caste name and caught hold on the hand of the defacto complainant and, thereby, outraged her modesty. When the minor son of the defacto complainant tried to rescue the wife of the defacto complainant, the accused beat him with a beer bottle and also criminally intimidated him. This is the base on which prosecution alleges commission of above offences in these crimes.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Adv. Sri.P.C.George appears for the defacto complainant.

5. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the Thenhipalam police in Crime No.743/2022, the appellants moved Anticipatory Bail application before the Special Court under the SC/ST Act. As per Annexure-1, viz., order in Crl.M.C. No.1804/2022, the learned Special Judge considered the rival contentions and finally dismissed the application holding that prima facie case made out and, therefore, grant of Anticipatory Bail is specifically barred under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act. Similarly, the bail applications filed by the appellants in Crime No.847/2022 of Tirurangadi Police Station, also were dismissed.

6. While canvassing Anticipatory Bail to the appellants, after setting aside the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the appellants argued at length to contend that the entire allegations are false and the police did not register any crime suo motu in these occurrences. He also pointed out that in both Crimes viz., Crime Nos.847/2022 and 743/2022 were registered on the b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top