The High Court of Kerala dismissed the anticipatory bail application for an accused in an SC/ST atrocity case. While not granting bail, the court modified the impugned order, directing the appellant to surrender for interrogation within ten days to identify other accused, with subsequent bail consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 729 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 744/2018 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 29-05-2018
CRIME NO. 240/2018 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , TRISSUR
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED
VIPIN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, VADERIYATTIL VEEDU, MUNDUR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST.-680545.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 729 of 2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1- A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.240/2018 ON THE FILES OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE-A2- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DATED 7.5.2018.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
R.AV
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
Crl.Appeal No.729 of 2018
Dated this the 21st day of June 2018
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the first accused along with few other accused in Crime No.240/2018 of Peramangalam Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 447 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) (g) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Crl.Appeal No.729 of 2018
2
downgrading the defacto complainant, who belong to Scheduled Caste.
Crl.Appeal No.729 of 2018
3
However, in the light of the interdiction under section 18 of the SC & ST ((Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail. However, in modification of the impugner order, I am inclined to dispose of the Criminal Appeal itself, with a direction to the petitioner herein to surrender before investigation officer within ten days from today. Thereafter, he shall be interrogated and if the petitioner is proposed to be arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day, which shall consider the bail application on the same day, having regard to the observations made above and specifically that the dispute indicates civil dispute and that the interrogation was specifically for the purpose of identifying the remaining accused. The court shall also have due regard to the decision of this court in Shanu Vs. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452) and that of the Supreme Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (Dr) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2018(2) KHC 207.
Crl.Appeal No.729 of 2018
4
Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of anticipatory bail under section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be granted to the accused.
Whether there is a need for custodial interrogation to identify remaining accused given the nature of the civil dispute.
How to dispose of the criminal appeal balancing the restrictions under the SC & ST Act and the circumstances of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shanu Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶43
Shanu Vs. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452)
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (Dr) Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶43
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (Dr) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2018(2) KHC 207
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VIPIN
STATE OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
