Dismissed

Bijoy Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2013Bail Appl./2104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an anticipatory bail application where the complaint involved an offence under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court held that such provision acts as a clear bar to granting relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed barring the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Bijoy Philip Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2104 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 24/2013 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

BIJOY PHILIP, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PHILIPOSE, KANIRATHUMMOOTIL, MOOLAVATTOM P.O. KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 2104 OF 2013

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2013

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

On going through the order of the court below declining to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, it is seen that the court below had perused the complaint and found that there was a clear allegation that the petitioner herein had, with the intention to humiliate the defacto complainant, called her by her caste name which attracts the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In view of Section 18 of the said Act, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the allegations are totally false and made with ulterior motive.

¶23

A probe into the veracity of the allegation is not warranted at this point of time. Once it is seen that the allegations in the complaint make out an offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 18 is said to be

¶24

B.A.No.2104/2013

¶25

-2-

¶26

a clear bar and this court is precluded from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

The petition is only to be dismissed. I do so.

¶28

However, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 27.03.2013 , who after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM Court concerned. If the petitioner moves an applications for bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance

¶29

with law.

¶30

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶31

Bijoy Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena Joseph Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Abison Vs the State of Kerala

Moidutty Vs State of Kerala

Deva Rajan Vs State of Kerala