Judicial discretion allows for the grant of anticipatory bail even in cases involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, subject to existing legal frameworks.

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.422 of 2011 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .

3.The alleged incident was on 27.8.2011. First Information Report was registered on 31.8.2011. It is clear from the First Information Statement that the defacto complainant had not gone to the hospital for any treatment. The allegation is that the accused attacked the defacto complainant and abused him, calling the caste name of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary.

5. The offences alleged include an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . Section 18 of the Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to protect the interests of the petitioner. If the petitioner were to appear before the learned Magistrate, it is submitted that he will be remanded to judicial custody as the offence involves a sessions offence.

7. The offences alleged against the petitioner include an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . InShanu v. State of Kerala ( 2000 (3) KLT 452 ), this Court held that the Magistrate has got power to grant bail to the accused even in cases under clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the . In that case, the learned Magistrate was directed to grant bail to the accused. The decision inShanu's case was followed by another learned single Judge in 2005 (1) KLD 250 (B.A.No.789 of 2005) and in 2005 KHC 2058(Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala). InAli v. State of Kerala ( 2000 (2) KLT 280 ), it was held that there is no bar for the Magistrate for granting bail in such cases on the basis of the general principles enunciated in Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . InSukumari v.State of Kerala ( 2001 (1) KLT 22 ), it was held that Section 437 of the does not create an absolute bar on the Magistrate to the grant of bail to persons accused of a non-bailable offence or in respect of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions.

8. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Bail Application can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate concerned within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the court shall grant bail to the petitioner on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper.

The Bail Application is disposed of as above.

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE

cms