IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021
CRIME NO.571 OF 2021 OF N.PARUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RIYAS,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, KOOTTUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
FIRE STATION ROAD, PARAVOOTHARA, MANNAM P.O.,
N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 520.
BY ADV. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM RURAL, PIN - 683 515.
3
RAJU
AGED 62 YEARS
KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, FIRE STATION ROAD,
PARAVOOTHARA, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 520.
SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021
2
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SC/ST ATROCITIES ACT - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(S) OF THE SC/ST ATROCITIES ACT REQUIRES COMMISSION OF OFFENCE IN PUBLIC VIEW - IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, ANTICIPATORY BAIL CAN BE GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegation against the petitioner was that he assaulted the de-facto complainant and intentionally insulted him by calling him by his caste name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Atrocities Act requires the commission of an offence in public view, prima facie, the offence under the provisions of the SC ST Atrocities Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: Whether the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Atrocities Act was attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since there was no evidence that the offence was committed in public view, the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Atrocities Act was not attracted. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to certain conditions.
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC ST Atrocities Act' for short). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 07.05.2021, the petitioner assaulted the de-facto complainant and intentionally insulted him by calling him by his caste name.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are some other issues between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner and that on the de-facto complainant attacking the wife of the petitioner, Crime No.570 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station was registered against the de-facto complainant alleging commission of offences under Section 447, 326 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station was registered only as a counter blast to the filing of the aforesaid complaint by the wife of the petitioner against the de-facto complainant.
4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the matter is under investigation and also points out that since the provisions of the SC ST Atrocities Act are attracted, an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Atrocities Act requires the commission of an offence in public view, prima facie, the offence under the provisions of the SC ST Atrocities Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The only other allegation against the petitioner is that under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a bailable offence. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, whenever called upon to do so;
(iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District;
(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.
Any observation in the order regarding the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is only for the purpose of considering the maintainability of this bail application and shall not be treated as a finding on that point.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.