Dismissed

Aneesh v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2809/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the SC/ST Act, the High Court of Kerala held that pre-arrest bail is barred by Section 18. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent Magistrate for regular bail. The court emphasised that the Magistrate must not decide mechanically if bail is sought under the SC/ST Act and must examine if essential elements of the offence are present.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to seek regular bail.

Aneesh Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2809 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2727/2015 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

ANEESH. S.,

¶9

AGED 32, S/O. SIVANANDAN, ANEESH BHAVAN, SANGHAKKADA MUKKU, PULEELA, NALLILA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.KIRANLAL, SRI.V.PREEJO PAULY.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 506.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA. T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A.No. 2809 of 2016

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No. 2727 of 2015 of the Kundara Police Station, initially registered under Sections 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Public

¶23

Prosecutor that investigation is now proceeding under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After the 2015 amendment, the correct Section must be 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The case diary also shows that such investigation is now proceeding. Thus, besides the major offence under Section 326 of IPC, there is allegation under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act also. In view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, this application for pre-arrest bail cannot be

¶24

B.A.No. 2809 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

entertained. It is submitted that Section 326 now stands deleted. Even then there is major allegation under the SC/ST Act. What is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is only pre-arrest bail. However, the petitioner can very well surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and seek regular bail. The ordinary jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to take decision on the request for regular bail is not in any manner excluded or taken away by any provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is well settled that even in cases where, necessary elements of the offence alleged are there, appropriate legal decision can be taken by the learned Magistrate on the request. It means that in cases where, the accused deserves bail, he can very well be granted bail by the learned Magistrate on application. The learned Magistrate will have to examine the whole case records, and see whether the essential elements of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are there in the case, or whether such a Section was dishonestly

¶27

B.A.No. 2809 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

incorporated later, because the FI statement does not contain such allegation. Let the factual aspects be probed into by the learned Magistrate, and let appropriate decision be taken on the request for regular bail. Decision shall not be taken mechanically, saying that the offence alleged under the SC/ST Act is triable by the Special Court.

¶30

Thus, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction to seek regular bail, this application is disposed of.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Aneesh v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Binu Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Babeesh Vs the Station House Officer, Kozhikode

K.H. Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Jayaraj Vs State of Kerala