Police officers sought anticipatory bail over alleged harassment, dispossession from quarters and abetment of a Scheduled Tribe colleague's suicide. The court dismissed all appeals, finding prima facie offences and a need for custodial interrogation. SC/ST appellants were outside the Act but were denied bail on the IPC allegations.
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 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 483/2019 DATED 31-08-2019 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA)ACT, MANNARKKAD
CRIME NO.425/2019 OF CBCID, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 3 & 4/ACCUSED 5 & 7:
2 VAISHAG K., AGED 28 YEARS S/O. KALADHARAN, THACHAMOOCHIKKL HOUSE, VILAYANCHATHANOOR P.O., PALAKKAD
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALUNKAL,CGC SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP C.K.PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2019, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1079/2019, CRL.A.1080/2019, CRL.A.1083/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1079 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 484/2019 DATED 31-08-2019 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA)ACT, MANNARKKAD
CRIME NO.425/2019 OF CBCID, PALAKKAD , Palakkad
APPELLANT/PETITIONER NO.2/ACCUSED NO.6:
JAYESH
AGED 30 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARINGULANGARA HOUSE, VAVULLIPURAM P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2019, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1071/2019, CRL.A.1080/2019, CRL.A.1083/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1080 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 483/2019 DATED 31-082019 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA)ACT/ADDITIIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MANNARKKAD
CRIME NO.425/2019 OF CBCID, PALAKKAD,
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2,3 & 8:
1 MUHAMMED AZAD, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. A.M. IBRAHIM, SAHIB HOUSE, EAST STREET, KODUVAYUR, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD. (SCPO-4175 AR CAMP, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD) 2 RAFEEK, AGED 48 YEARS S/O MUHAMMEDLI, NEDIYEADATH VEEDU, ALANGAD (P.O), P-3827, QUARTER MASTER, AR CAMP, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD 3 MAHESH K.C., AGED 38 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, KANDEMKAVIL, PALLIPPADI, KIANJIRAPUZH, MANNARKKAD (CPO-6789, AR CAMP, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD) BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SRI.A.V.RAVI
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:
THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031, (CR. NO. 425/CB/PKD/R/19 OF CRIME BRANCH, PALAKKAD)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2019, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1071/2019, CRL.A.1079/2019, CRL.A.1083/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1083 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 483/2019 DATED 31-08-2019 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA)ACT/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MANNARKKAD
CRIME NO.425/2019 OF CBCID, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/4TH ACCUSED:
PRATHAPAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O VELLA, KALLEKKAD (H), KUTHANOOR, PALAKKAD (CPO-6712, AR CAMP, KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD).
BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SRI.A.V.RAVI
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CR.NO 425/CB/PKD/R/19,CRIME BRQANCH PALAKKAD).
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2019, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1071/2019, CRL.A.1079/2019, CRL.A.1080/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
5
JUDGMENT
[ CRL.A.1071/2019, CRL.A.1079/2019, CRL.A.1080/2019, CRL.A.1083/2019 ]
Dated this the 9th day of October 2019
Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Crime
No.425/CB/PKD/R/2019 of Crime Branch, Palakkad are the appellants. Order dated 31.08.2019 was passed by the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) [for short 'SC/ST(POA)') cases, Mannarkkad dismissing CMP No.483 and 484/2019 applications filed by them under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applications were dismissed and pre-arrest bail sought by the appellants were declined for the reason that prima facie materials are available to attract the offences under the SC/ST(POA) Act and therefore, the Special Court is barred from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners. The Special Court had also found that grant of anticipatory bail to
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
6
petitioners would interfere and hamper with the smooth progress of investigation.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
7
maintainability of an application seeking pre-arrest bail in view of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, held in paragraphs 13 and 15 which are extracted hereunder :
“13. It is explicitly made clear that the Court of Sessions or High Court can entertain the application for pre-arrest bail to ascertain its maintainability. The law does not permit to reject the application for anticipatory bail merely because the case has been registered under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. But, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to examine as to whether the applicant at all is a fit person to be treated as accused of the crime registered under the Act of 1989. Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not bar judicial scrutiny of the accusation made in the complaint. When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.
14.xx xx xx xx xx xx
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
8
permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law.”
committed by the appellants involved in the appeal under consideration of the High Court of Bombay and the Court had taken the view that in spite of the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, against invocation of power under Section 438 Cr.P.C, it is still open to this Court to find out by looking into the recitals in the FIR of the case itself, whether prima facie case is made out by the complainant against the appellants. The court after a scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR, held :
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
9
appellant, as a dangerous weapons or means. Moreover, there are simple injuries caused to first informant. Therefore, custodial interrogation of appellant is not necessary for the sake of investigation. There is also no possibility of absconding of the accused in this crime. So far as the apprehension of tampering with the evidence of prosecution is concerned, the requisite conditions would be imposed on the appellants. In the result, there is no difficulty to allow the present appeals for the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of appellants-accused in the present crime. Hence, appeals deserve to be allowed.”
order declining pre-arrest bail passed by a subordinate court and directed release of the appellant in Crl.A. No.1458 of 2018 on 08.01.2019 for the reason that the allegations that the appellant
had committed offence involving sexual harassment against the alleged victim in the month of July 2016 was taken for setting the law in motion only on 01.02.2017 i.e. after about 2 years of the incident and there was no specific plea for the victim in the complaint lodged that she was abused or harassed sexually or otherwise acted to exploit her status as a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. The Single Bench held in Jishnu v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KLT 432]:
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
10
“8. As held by the Apex Court mere unilateral allegation by any individual belonging to any caste, when such allegation is clearly motivated and false, cannot be accepted as gospel truth to deprive a person of his liberty without an independent scrutiny. The exclusion of provision of anticipatory bail cannot possibly be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations are patently false or ill motivated. The protection of innocents against abuse of law is part of inherent jurisdiction of court being part of access to justice and to protect individual liberty against any oppressive action. At the same time, S.18 of the Act would apply in all its vigor in deserving cases where on evaluation of the prosecution allegation, the court finds the case to be prima facie genuine warranting custodial interrogation and pre-trial arrest and detention.”
State of Kerala [2018 (1) KLT 883] had taken a view while reversing the order declining bail by a subordinate court in a case wherein an offence under the SC/ST(POA) Act is involved and granting pre-arrest bail that :
“The materials so far collected by the prosecution are not sufficient to show that the petitioners had instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has no case that there was any positive act on the part of the petitioners instigating or intentionally aiding the deceased to commit suicide and that they intended the consequence to follow, it being commission of suicide by the
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
11
deceased. In such circumstances, I am of the view that it is not imperative for an effective investigation of the case to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioners. It appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. The prosecution has no case that the petitioners have got criminal antecedents.”
Rather than the FIR, the court had also done a scrutiny of
the materials collected by the prosecution till date on which appeal came up for its consideration.
The court had even gone into the suicide note and held :
“The Suicide note, as stated earlier, was not written by the deceased in his handwriting. He had got it prepared by an Advocate Clerk. It mentions the names of the petitioners as persons responsible for the suicide. However, it does not state the acts committed by the petitioners or the third accused which led and compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Mere mentioning the names of the accused in the suicide note, without particulars of the acts committed by them, is not sufficient to implicate the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.”
7. In Pratikkumar Rajeshbhai Patel v. State of
Gujarat [2019 SCC Online Guj 137] relied on by the learned counsel the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad found that in the FIR lodged by the victim, a plea that the accused is not a
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
12
member of the SC/ST caste is not taken and therefore, held that the amended provision of Section 18 of the Act creating the bar will not come into play. The appeal was allowed and pre-arrest bail was granted after setting aside the order of the Special Court declining bail.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
13
insult, humiliate or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will amongst the members of Sabar Community. Allegation of the prosecution that such publication hurt the sentiments of Sabar Community or caused breach of peace or ill-will amongst them are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no case under the Act could have been registered. Contents of the publication do not disclose any insult, intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will towards the community and any fanciful inference in the FIR dehors the primary facts cannot constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences justifying the applicability of the exclusionary bar under Sections 18/18A of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest subject to certain conditions imposed on him. The Calcutta High Court has observed in the case (Supra) that notwithstanding incorporation of Section 18A into the Act, limited jurisdiction of the Court to examine the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR to see whether such allegations when taken up at their face value, disclose ingredients of such offence is not taken away.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
14
(Crl.A. No.1030 of 2018), the court granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant after finding that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(POA) Act is not applicable to the case which was seized by it. The court below found after perusal of the FIR containing narration of the incident by the first informant that those do not make out a case that the accused had intentionally touched a girl named Shrutika and that touch was sexual in nature. Therefore, the court found that the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) was unlikely to be attracted prima facie for want of allegations in the FIR. Thus, jurisdiction under Section 438 was exercised and pre-arrest bail was granted.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
15
that the inquiry must be time bound and should not exceed seven days and even if case is registered after preliminary inquiry, arrest of the accused is not mandatory.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
16
arrest bail in a case against the petitioner involving offences under the SC/ST(POA) Act must see whether the allegations in the FIS lodged or the complaint filed by the victim would attract any offences under the Act against the appellants or are totally false ones.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
17
FIR based on materials. As is revealed from the Case Diary, Crime No.443/19 was registered at Ottapalam Police Station, following the finding of the dead body of Mr.Kumar N.K., a CPO6699 of Armed Reserve Camp, Kallekkad, Palakkad near an electric post that stands on the northern side of the railway track situated one kilometer westwards from the Lakkidy Railway Station at 22.15 hours on 22.05.2019. After getting report of the incident from the Station Master of Lakkidy Railway Station, the SHO of Ottapalam Police Station reached the spot followed by Sub Inspector of Police, Ottapalam. The body was got identified to be that of Sri.Kumar N.K., CPO-6699 of A.R.Camp, it was removed from the railway track to a convenient and safer location and a scene guard was posted. Crime No.443/2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ottapalam Police Station on the same day. Investigation was commenced by ISHO of Ottapalam. Lateron investigation was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, D.C.R.B, Palakkad vide order No.B3-17315/2019/TSR dated 01.08.2019 and was conducted by him during the period from 02.08.2019 till
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
18
04.08.2019. Subsequently a petition was filed by Smt.Sajini, W/o.Sri.Kumar and based on that the case was transferred to Crime Branch, vide order dated 02.08.2019 No.D3112096/2019/PHQ and the case was re-registered as Crime No.425/CB/PKD/R/2019 at CBCID Head Quarters. Accordingly, in obedience to proceedings No.D1-5523/2019/CB-PKD(1) dated 04.08.2019 of SP, CBCID, Palakkad, thorough investigation in the case was held.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
19
his family from April 2017 onwards. In the meantime Smt.Sajini
became pregnant and in December, 2018 she went to her ancestral house at Poovar in Thiruvananthapuram for delivery. Since the quarters was in a dilapidated condition, Sri.Kumar was in need of a more comfortable quarter to reside with their new born baby at A.R. Camp, Kallekkad, Palakkad. Quarter No.E 39 became vacant then and Sri.Kumar N.K. Preferred an application for getting the same. Quarter No.E/39 was allotted to him on 05.04.2019 vide proceedings of the 1st accused dated 25.04.2019 itself. In view of the repair works done in the quarters by one Mr.Gireesh Kumar, the pre-occupier, the deceased was made to remit Rs.15,000/- to him. Thereafter Mr.Kumar shifted his furniture and other belongings to the newly allotted quarter No.E/39. After occupying the newly allotted quarters, he had locked it and the key was kept with him.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
20
FIS, Smt.Sajini who was away at her ancestral home, had only hearsay information from Kumar about the ill-treatment he faced at A.R. Camp, Kallekkad. The investigating officer also proceeded to incorporate offences in the FIR based on the allegations raised by Sajini in the FIS and available in the suicide note of the deceased. In view of the death of the author of the suicide note, it assumes much relevance in the matter of arriving at a prima facie satisfaction on the attraction of offences incorporated in the FIR. Since FIS was lodged by the wife of Kumar (Deceased) who had only limited direct knowledge or information about the alleged accusations, the recovery of suicide note very proximate to the death and referring to the incidents at the A.R. Camp at the instance of Deputy Commandant and other policemen though not in specific terms undoubtedly paved a major role in the pursuit of investigation. Therefore as directed by the dictums referred to supra, a preliminary inquiry is much warranted into the materials available. Attraction of the offences or involvement of falsity in the allegations can to the best be ascertained from a consideration of both the FIS, the suicide note
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
21
allegedly written by the deceased and the materials obtained by the investigation team on its basis.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
22
basis to see whether the allegations are falsehood or adequate to prima facie attract the offences. The investigation so far held by the investigation team on the basis of allegations made by Kumar in his suicide note brought to light several aspects pointing at the role played by the appellants in the ill-treatment.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
23
cannot go into those aspects, since the enquiry directed to be held by plethora of decisions was a preliminary inquiry into the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint itself. On reading of the suicide note and the allegations raised by the first informant, the conclusion liable to be drawn prima facie is that Kumar had faced ill-treatment and harassment from his companion Civil Police Officers and the Deputy Commandant. In the circumatances, this Court need not go into an indepth inquiry to see whether the suicide note is a creation of the prosecution. To make this Court to think on the line, proposed by the learned counsel that suicide note in view of its recovery, days after recovery of deadbody, can only be a fabricated document, there must be a tinge of evidence to drive home prejudice of the investigating team against the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel was unable to point out any such circumstances indicating such an enthusiasm for the investigating officer to say that the appellants and the appellants themselves are the perpetrators of the crime. In the case on hand the incorporation of several of the offences into the crime was based on recitals in
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
24
the suicide note of the deceased and there is every justification to hold a preliminary enquiry to see prima facie those are liable to attract the offences. Therefore, a preliminary enquiry was held strictly confined to the FIS lodged by Smt.Sajini, the suicide note and the factums brought to light by the investigation held till date.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
25
Civil Police officer in charge of Duty Warning Officer. There A1 grabbed his mobile phone and directed the duty officer on that day's duty to keep the same in duty office. A1 has also directed Kumar's stay at barrack. He also prevented his entry at the quarters by directing A3 to lock E-57, the old quarter occupied by him for the time being, so as to deny his access thereto. He was thus prevented from taking his personal belongings necessary to report for duty. Kumar was constrained to continue his stay in barrack. Therefore, he left the barrack and absented himself from attending duty from 09.05.2019. Memos issued to him by Assistant Commandant on 15.05.2019 and 22.05.2019, did not yield results.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
26
at A.R. Camp on 18.07.2019. He took leave from 19.07.2019 till 23.07.2019. On 20.07.2019 Kumar came to A.R. Camp with his wife to stay at Quarter NO.E-57, the original quarter with a view to attend the PSC examination on 21.07.2019 and 23.07.2019. In the quarter everything was put in a shattered manner and since it was not fit for accommodation, he was constrained to stay in a lodge with his wife and child. After sending his wife and child to Thiruvananthapuram on 23.07.2019, he travelled to Coimbatore on 24.07.2019 and returned to Ottappalam by a passenger train. He committed suicide at around 9.15 p.m. near Lakkidy Railway Station. These are the sequence of events prior to the death of Kumar revealed from the materials relating to investigation held till date. The factum that Kumar committed suicide is not in dispute. The dispute is only with respect to the involvement of the appellants to drive him to commit suicide. The information about incidents discussed above was collected during investigation held in the case till date. Though specific recitals regarding each incidents are not there in the suicide note, what can be derived on a reading of it was that incidents
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
27
such as taking back possession of quarter No.E-39 from him on the 30th day of its allotment, insult and humiliation severally by superior officer and companion officers of A.R. Camp, removal of his belongings kept in quarter No.E-39 to E-57 without prior notice and against his consent and dumping of those in a scattered manner there, so as to damage relevant credentials belonging to him had caused mental pain and worries to Kumar and those had driven him to put an end to his life. Therefore, those are nothing but prima facie materials gathered by the investigating officer to reach a conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offence under Section 306, IPC and thereby Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
28
consent or will. Though the act alleged was termed by the prosecution with nomenclature 'theft' and the offence under Section 380 IPC is incorporated in the FIR, there is absolutely nothing in the primary documents relied on by this Court to hold the preliminary enquiry that movables belonging to the deceased was removed from the quarters possessed by him by the culprits with a view to take those on their own. The materials relied on would prima facie indicate that the offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Act is attracted, since it is liable to be drawn therefrom prima facie that Kumar being a member of Scheduled Tribe was dispossessed with his quarters and his enjoyment of the same was interfered with. On a close scrutiny of the provision in the Act describing the offence under Section 3(1)(g), it is pertinent to note that the word 'wrongfully' was not used by the legislature to understand its meaning as the same in usage in common parlance. The legislature in it's wisdom has given a specific meaning to the word 'wrongfully' as made it clear under explanation incorporated thereto. It is extracted hereunder for easy reference :
29
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
“Explanation.––For the purposes of clause (f) and this
clause, the expression ―wrongfull includes—
(A) against the person‘s will;
(B) without the person‘s consent;
(C) with the person‘s consent, where such consent has been obtained by putting the person, or any other person in whom the person is interested in fear of death or of hurt; or
(D) fabricating records of such land;”
'wrongfully' as above by the legislature, the argument advanced by the learned counsel do not hold good. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the allegations are adequate to draw a conclusion prima facie that the offence under Section 3(1)(g) was attracted against the appellants.
the allegations in the primary materials that the offence may be attracted, the culprits being public servants, having done the acts
in obedience to orders issued by their superior official (Accused
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
30
No.1) the offence will not be attracted against them. It is true that the recitals in the primary documents relied on indicate that the alleged culprits act to remove the belongings of the deceased from the quarters to another as directed by their superior. Every action done in obedience to the direction of a superior official cannot be in discharge of a public duty. Public duty has a different connotation than that was canvassed by the learned counsel . Therefore, there is no basis to draw a conclusion prima facie based on the materials relied on that the alleged culprits of those offences had done the alleged acts in discharge of public duty. Therefore, the act alleged is not liable to be exempted from the purview of the offence dealt with under Section 3(1)(z) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
31
adequate to draw a conclusion of commission of any of the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act by the alleged culprits. In view of the discussion hereinabove made, this Court has no hesitation to draw a conclusion that the bar under Section 18 as well as 18A against exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C is applicable in the case of the appellants.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
32
his death. He had shifted his valuables to that quarters. He did not reside there. It is evidenced from the materials that the same quarter was re-allotted to accused No.5 without an order being passed cancelling the order of allotment and the reasons for doing so being communicated to Kumar. The learned counsel would argue that in view of the desertion of Kumar from A.R. Camp, the Deputy Commandant did not communicate. But, not even an attempt was made to communicate him by post in his known address. They did not even wait for him to turn up and to remove his belongings. The order of cancellation of allotment must be prepared officially and entry must be made in the register of allotment of quarters. It is mandatory that the reason for cancellation must be communicated to him after granting him an opportunity of being heard. Principles of natural justice require that. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor was that an entry of cancellation was made by endorsement in the order of allotment of quarters in the register itself by accused No.4 and 5 collusively and therefore, the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC were also alleged against them. Materials
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
33
available are prima facie suggestive of complicity of accused in those offences also.
CRL.A.No.1071 OF 2019 & con. Cases
34
18A is strictly applicable in the case on hand.
The observations made on the merits of the case are meant
for disposal of these appeals and the trial court shall deal with
the case untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment.
In the result, Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
ttb
3 issues framed by the court
Did Sections 18 and 18A bar anticipatory bail where the materials prima facie disclosed offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act?
Did removal from allotted quarters on a superior's directions attract the public-duty exception under Section 3(1)(z)?
Were appellants belonging to SC/ST entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious IPC allegations against them?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kiran Madhukar Ingle v. State of MaharasthraRelied on¶75
Crl.A. No.787/2018 (Kiran Madhukar Ingle v. State of Maharasthra)
Jishnu v. State of KeralaRelied on¶93
[2019 (1) KLT 432]
Damodaran v. State of KeralaExplained¶98
[2018 (1) KLT 883]
Pratikkumar Rajeshbhai Patel v. State of GujaratRelied on¶108
[2019 SCC Online Guj 137] · Who else cites this
Kingshuk Gupta v. Sate of West BengalRelied on¶112
(CRM No.10429 of 2018)
Salim Abdul Shaikh v. The State of MharashtraRelied on¶119
(Crl.A. No.1030 of 2018)
Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶120
[(2018) 6 SCC 454] · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 4 enactments
SREEJITH
VAISHAG K.
STATE OF KERALA
JAYESH
MUHAMMED AZAD
RAFEEK
MARY JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
