The statutory bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Atrocities Act restricts granting pre-arrest bail when sufficient allegations of scheduled offenses exist.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of September 2019 In the petition on hand, order passed by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery on 29.08.2019 in Crl.M.C 1413/2019 is under challenge. Crl.M.C 1413/2019 is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed by petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Crime No.314/2019 of Mayyil Police Station. The allegation of the prosecution was that the accused alongwith co-accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (for short, 'the Act'). The application seeking pre-arrest bail was dismissed by Court of Sessions, Thalassery for the reason that the statutory bar under Section 18A stands against exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C, in cases wherein offences under the Act, are involved.

2. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner has approached this Court in the present proceedings challenging the same. It is contended by Sri. Zubair Pulikool, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations that stand are inadequate to attract an offence under Section 326 IPC against the petitioner. According to him, the allegations to attract the offence under Section 326 if at all any are there, are leveled against one Mr.Arshad, co-accused of petitioner. According to him, if the allegations are lacking to attract an offence under the Act, the courts are not barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also canvassed for showing some leniency in the matter taking into account of the age of the petitioner, that is 19 years.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed the FIR and FIS relating to Crime No.314/2019 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District for perusal. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the allegations against the petitioner in the FIS are sufficient to attract an offence under Section 324 IPC and it being a scheduled offence, an offence under Section 3 (2)(va) of the Act will also be attracted. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, originally (1)(s) of the Act was there in the FIR but later on, the said offence was substituted by an offence under Section

3(2)(va) of the Act.

4. In the backdrop of the rival contentions putforth, the FIR is read, which was procured and placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is pertinent to note that the allegations are adequate to support the contention that the petitioner herein had assaulted the defacto complainant and other victims. Therefore, the offence under Section 324 IPC is attracted in the case on hand against the petitioner and that being a scheduled offence, the offence under Section 3 (2)(va) of the Act is also attracted.

5. Circumstances, being so there is every reason for the bar under Section 18A to be applicable in the case on hand. The said view was taken by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery while rejecting application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The context of the case, does not warrant taking of a different view by this Court.

6. In the result, Crl. Appeal stands disposed of.

Petitioner if intends can surrender before the court below and seek for regular bail. If he surrenders and offers solvent sureties, considering his age and seriousness of the scheduled offence under Section 324 IPC attracted against him from the allegations, the court shall consider his application seeking bail with a lenient view without delay, provided solvent sureties are furnished by him to it's satisfaction.