Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34882
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
PRANAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 2031/2023
SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.M.S.ANEER, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH, SRI.SARATH K.P., SRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., SRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
The SC/ST (PoA) Act prohibits anticipatory bail if prima facie evidence of caste-based atrocities is established, emphasizing the need for strict enforcement of its provisions.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(s) – Anticipatory bail – The appellants, accused of offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, challenged the denial of bail, arguing lack of prima facie case – The court found sufficient evidence of caste-based abuse, affirming the applicability of Section 18 of the Act, which bars anticipatory bail in such cases. (Paras 10, 12, 17)
(B) Legal principles – The court reiterated that the SC/ST (PoA) Act aims to protect marginalized communities from atrocities and emphasized the need for strict enforcement of its provisions. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case: The appellants were accused of physically assaulting and abusing a Scheduled Caste victim, allegedly for his caste identity. The victim's allegations included caste-based insults and threats. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court: The court determined that prima facie evidence supported the victim's claims of caste-based abuse, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail. (Paras 12, 17)
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution established a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. (Paras 12, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's materials sufficiently indicated that the appellants committed the alleged offences, thus the bar under Section 18 of the Act applied. (Paras 17)
Result: Anticipatory bail application rejected.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20.12.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.170/2023 passed by the Court of the Special Judge for the Trial of offences under SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, Nedumangadu.
2. The appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.1932/2023 of Parassala Police Station. They are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 294(b), 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC , Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act and Section 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').
3. The prosecution case as discernible from the impugned order reads thus:”
“4. Specific prosecution allegation is, ON 26.10.2023 at 1.30 p.m., 4th accused took defact complainant near Chemisty Department of VTM NSS College and 1st accused snatched his mobile phone. On resisting the same, he slapped on his left ear. Accused No.1 and 2 fisted on the centre of his chest and slapped and fisted on various parts of his body. Accused No.3 after searching the mobile phone of de-facto complainant asked him whether he will sent messages to girls and 3rd accused kicked several times on his wrist and fisted on his shoulder. He again kicked on the abdomen of de-facto complainant. Accused No.1 to 3 disrobbed de- facto complainant. They insulted de-facto complainant calling his caste name and blaming his skim colour. They took photos of de-facto complainant and intimidated him to rope him in atrocity cases. They intimidated de-facto complainant to cause his death. All accused committed above atrocity towards de-facto complainant knowing that he belong to Scheduled Caste.” (sic.)
4. The petitioners are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The victim is member of a Scheduled Caste.
5. Notice was served on the victim. He did not turn up.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act have not been made out. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the prosecution failed to produce any material to show that the appellants were aware of the fact that the victim belongs to scheduled caste. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the appellants committed the alleged offences for the reason that the victim belongs to scheduled caste. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the registration of the crime alleging the offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is a misuse of the Statute. The intention of the victim is to see that the appellants are confined in prison. It is submitted that the report regarding the enquiry conducted by the Internal Disciplinary Committee would reveal the true facts.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor resisted the bail plea on the ground that it is hit by Section 18 of the Act. 9. The Case Diary has been made available. I have gone through the FIS.
10. InPrathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [ (2020) 4 SCC 727 ], the Supreme Court held that the bar created under Sections 18 and 18-A shall not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the applicability of the provisions of the Act.
11. InSubhash Kashinath Mahajan (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra and Another [ 2018 (2) KHC 207 ], while dealing with the pre-amended Act, the Supreme Court held that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
12. The essential question to be considered is whether the prosecution materials prima facie reveal the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. I have carefully gone through the FI
