Dismissed

Abdul Sathar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2016Bail Appl./4/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala denied pre-arrest bail to the accused in a crime involving caste-related offences under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court applied the precedent of Shanu v. State of Kerala, citing the embargo under Section 18 of the Act as the reason for refusal, while suggesting future consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied.

Abdul Sathar Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4 of 2016 ()

¶6

---------------------------CRIME NO. 1589/2015 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED KHAN, EDAYILA VEEDU, KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B. A. No. 4 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1589/2015 of Ochira Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 & 354 of IPC and Section 3(i)(XI) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 23.09.2015 at about 5 a.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and caused bodily injuries on the defacto complainant after called him by his caste name. It was further alleged that, using a chopper bodily injuries were also caused. Crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶22

The incident happened due to previous dispute. The case diary discloses that, the chopper used has been recovered from the house of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to these facts, the petitioner may be granted bail.

¶23

However, in the light of the embargo under Section 18 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in the light of

¶24

¶25

B. A. No. 4 of 2016

¶26

the decision reported in Shanu V. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452) , I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. However, in the eventuality of the petitioner surrendering before the concerned court and filing a bail application, it shall be considered by the court on the same day, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶29

/true copy/

¶30

P. A. to Judge

¶31

Abdul Sathar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sathar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Irshath Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Somy Vs State of Kerala

Aju A.S. Vs State of Kerala

Suneesh Kumar K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala