Dismissed

Baburaj M.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2017CRL.A/667/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal appeal filed by an appellant against the rejection of his application for anticipatory bail. The court held that when there are prima facie materials attracting offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not permissible due to the bar under Section 18 of the

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed; the appellant is free to surrender to obtain regular bail.

Baburaj M.R. 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

CRL.A.No. 667 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRMC 2312/2016 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 613/2016 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, TRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/3RD ACCUSED:

¶9

BABURAJ M.R.

¶10

AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN, MULANGATTUPARAMBIL, CHENDRAPPINNI .P.O,CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SMT.RESHMI JACOB SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN SRI.P.VISHNU (PAZHANGANAT)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No. 667 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXUER-A1:	TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.2305/2015
ANNEXUER-A2:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR IN I.A.2983/2015 DATED 01.10.2015.
ANNEXUER-A3:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 07.10.2015.
ANNEXUER-A4:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P.NO.2079/2016 PREFERRED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
ANNEXUER-A5:	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.613/2016 OF THE MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION DATED 10.03.2016.
ANNEXUER-A6:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.2.2017 IN B.A.NO.345/2017.
RESPONDENT'S	EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶24

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

¶25

Crl. Appeal No.667 of 2017

¶26

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellant is the third accused in Crime No.613/2016 of Mathilakam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3(ii), 3(v), 3(viii), 3(ix), 3(xiv) and 3(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act').

¶29

The prosecution allegation is that on 22.09.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., the accused called the caste name of the defacto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, with the intention to insult her. The accused Nos.1 to 3 also called abusive words against her son and threatened him that they would kill him.

¶30

The appellant filed application for pre-arrest bail before the court below. The court below as per the order

¶31

Crl. Appeal No.667 of 2017

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

impugned, dismissed the said application.

¶34

Heard.

¶35

I have gone through the case diary and I find that

¶36

there are materials to prima facie attract the offences under the Act. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant that civil disputes are pending between the parties in respect of a pathway. There is no allegation that any bodily injury was caused to the defacto complainant or her son. It cannot be stated at this stage as to whether the allegations are true or not, particularly when the civil litigations are pending between the parties. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the view that if the appellant surrenders before the court below, the appellant is no doubt entitled to get regular bail. However, since there is bar under Section 18 of the Act in granting the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C., when there is allegation prima facie constituting the offence

¶37

Crl. Appeal No.667 of 2017

¶38

-: 3 :-

¶39

under the Act, I am of the view that the court below was perfectly correct in dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶40

In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to surrender before the court below, if so advised. If the appellant surrenders before the court below and applies for regular bail, after giving the copy of the application for bail in advance to the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, the court below shall consider and dispose of the application for bail in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the date of surrender itself.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

STK

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Baburaj M.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburaj M.R. 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

Tito Thomas Vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate

Arsha Vs State of Kerala

Jesso Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs Rajeena

Bincy Jacob Vs State of Kerala