Dismissed

Pallivila Salim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2018Bail Appl./2199/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that Section 14A of the Act takes away the High Court's original jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making the application non-maintainable without first seeking bail from the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to file an application in the Special Court concerned for appropriate relief.

Pallivila Salim Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2018 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2199 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 22/2018 OF PALODE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

1 PALLIVILA SALIM,

¶9

AGED 54 YEARS, PALLIVILAYIL, PERINGAMALA P.O., PERINGAMALA,

¶10

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 ARUNKUMAR P. N.,

¶12

AGED 32 YEARS, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, PULLIVATTOM,

¶13

PERINGAMALA P.O., PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

DISTRICT.

¶15

3 SAJEENA YAHIYA,

¶16

AGED 39 YEARS, A. A. MANZIL, VARUVANKADU, KOCHUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

4 SUNAISA ANSARI,

¶18

AGED 28 YEARS, BLOCK NO. 111, KALAYAPURAM, MADATHARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADV.SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶20

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶21

STATE OF KERALA,

¶22

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

¶23

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶24

NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶25

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶26

PALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶27

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.K.K.SHEEBA

¶28

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

B.A.No.2199 of 2018

Dated this the 23^rd day of May 2018

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section

¶36

438 Cr.P.C.

¶37

The petitioners are the accused in the case registered as Crime No.22/2018 of the Palode police station under Sections 353, 354 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C and also under Sections 3(1)(e), 3(1)(m) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶38

In Ajan G.Krishnan v. State of Kerala (2017(1) KLT 488 : 2017(1) KHC 412), this Court has held that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 14A of the aforesaid Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 438 or Section 439 Cr.P.C has been impliedly taken away. This Court has held as follows:

¶39

“On a close analysis of the provisions of the Act, there can be no doubt that only the Special Court

¶40

B.A.No.2199/2018

¶41

¶42

or the Exclusive Special Court constituted under S.14 of the Act can have jurisdiction to entertain an application for Bail with respect to offences committed under Act 33 of 1989. The power of the Court of Session and of the High Court in its original criminal jurisdiction to entertain an application under S.438 or S.439 of the Code has been impliedly taken away by S.14A of the said Act. The power of the High Court in the matter is only appellate jurisdiction as provided under S.14A(2) of the said Act. Appeal can lie only against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court and unless there is an order of the Special Court refusing bail, the accused will have no right to file an appeal before the High Court praying for grant of bail to them. Existence of an order of the Special Court is, therefore, sine qua non for approaching the High Court.” (emphasis supplied).

¶43

Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners have

¶44

not approached the Special Court concerned with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present application is not maintainable before this Court and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

B.A.No.2199/2018

¶46

¶47

In the result, the application is dismissed. The petitioners

¶48

are at liberty to file application in the Special Court concerned for

¶49

appropriate relief.

¶50

(sd/-)

¶51