Dismissed

Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2017Bail Appl./697/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

One Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under the SC/ST Act, noting the discriminatory bar under its own precedent and the prima facie nature of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as jurisdiction is barred by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 697 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 80/2017 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ----------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJESH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE SANKARAN NAIR, KAKKATT HOUSE, CHITTANDA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.V.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

B.A.No.697 of 2017

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2017

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime

¶21

No.80/2017 of Wadakkanchery Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 376, 406, 417 and 420 IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, 'the SC/ST Act'). The first informant is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner allegedly made a false promise to her that he would marry her. Believing his words she allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her. He misappropriated about Rs.7,85,000/belonging to her and gold ornaments worth seven sovereigns.

¶22

The learned counsel submits that the allegations

¶23

are false.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

It is not disputed that the first informant had approached the police with identical allegations and the police did not register a case. This prompted her to file a complaint before

¶26

B.A.No.697 of 2017 2

¶27

the learned Magistrate who forwarded it to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was thus this case happened to be registered. The first informant is a married woman. It is submitted that the marriage is still subsisting. She is 38 years old. She has one child in that marriage. Prima facie, it is difficult to believe that she believed the words of the petitioner that he would marry her. But for the fact that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibits this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case falling under the SC/ST Act I would have granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner may approach appropriate court for bail in view of the decision of this Court in Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000(3)KLT 452].

¶28

In the result this application is dismissed with the above observations.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶31

¶32

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Fazil Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs State of Kerala

Dhaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs the S.I. of Police

Sanchu Vs State of Kerala