Allowed

Devassy v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC20 Mar 2019Bail Appl./358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application where petitioners were accused under the SC/ST Act and IPC. Relying on *Pankaj B Suthar* and *Shanu*, the Court found the complaint lacked substance and was based on hearsay and family feud, deeming detention unwarranted. Bail was granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subject to surrender, no tampering with evidence, and execution of bail bond.

Devassy Vs Station House Officer — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 358 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 512/2018 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 DEVASSY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN, MENACHERY HOUSE, LALOOR, ARANATTUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 618.

¶9

2 JESSY, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. DEVASSY, MENACHERY HOUSE, LALOOR, ARANATTUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 618.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR - 680 567.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.B. RAMANAND.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.No.358/2019 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in crime No.512/2018 of the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur. The offence alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v a) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complaint was lodged against the petitioners is only on a mere assumption, without any basis and in order to wreck personal vengeances. The act of the respondents does not constitute any ingredience of the Act and will amount to the abuse of the power of the Court.

¶18

2. According to the petitioners, they have not done any offences as alleged by the petitioners. In fact, the defacto complainant forwarded the false complaint in order to prosecute the age old persons.

¶19

B.A.No.358/2019 3

¶20

3. I have gone through the report filed by the Public Prosecutor. From the case diary, it has come out that the defacto complainant's daughter is a serial artist and there was a complaint that she had some illicit connection with the petitioners' son. In fact, the defacto complainant has not directly witnessed the incident. She has filed a complaint against the petitioners on the strength of the hearsay. The real victim was a major girl and she has not filed a complaint before the Police regarding the grievances. Moreover, the defacto complainant was working as a house maid for several years at the residence of the petitioners and at present, the defacto complainant's daughter is acting in Telefilm created by the 1^st petitioner's son. So, there is an allegation that the defacto complainant's daughter is having some illicit connection with the petitioner's son. Considering this fact, I find that some grave dispute are

¶21

B.A.No.358/2019 4

¶22

between the family of the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Probably, that might have created some vengeance and accordingly, the defacto complainant on the strength of hearsay filed a complaint against the petitioners.

¶23

4. Now, it is settled by decision that the provisions of the SC/ST Act is misusing. So, the Court has to consider the bail application and cannot blindly and mechanically denied the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by virtue of the provision contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

¶24

5. This fact has been discussed in a ruling

¶25

held in Pankaj B Suthar V . State of Gujarat, [1992

¶26

(1) GLR 405].

¶27

6. It has also held in Shanu V. State of

¶28

Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 452] that the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to grant bail to persons accused of the offence

¶29

B.A.No.358/2019 5

¶30

punishable under any of the sub-clause (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1), irrespective of the fact that the case is triable by Special Court. It is a well settled fact that the anticipatory bail can be granted if the Court is convinced that there is no serious substance in the matter. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I find that the detaining of the petitioners behind the bars is not warranted. Hence this petition is allowed.

¶31

7. Considering the arguments advanced by both sides, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail by invoking Section 438 of the Cr.P.C on the following conditions:

¶32

1.The petitioners herein shall surrender before the SHO, Valappad Police Station, Thrissur on or before 05.04.2019 between 10 a.m and 11 a.m. and after questioning, they shall be produced before the Special Court and shall be released on bail on executing a

¶33

B.A.No.358/2019 6

¶34

bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each

¶35

for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶36