Disposed

Ambu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2019CRL.A/1116/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that while the jurisdictional bar under Secs.18 & 18A of the SC/ST Act prevents the hearing of anticipatory bail pleas, the bar does not apply to regular bail applications under Secs.437 or 439 Cr.P.C. The Court directed the appellants to surrender and have regular bail considered on merits by the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to surrender for interrogation by 11.11.2019 so that their bail applications may be considered on merits by the Special Court.

Ambu Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶6

(CRIME NO.413/2019 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGAOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶7

CRL.M.P.NO.131/2019 OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA

¶8

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:

¶9

1 AMBU

¶10

AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BAIJU, PALATHARA VEEDU, (NOW RESIDING AT MELOOT VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, NADUVATHUCHERI MURI, THEKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691319).

¶11

2 SRUTHIL JYOTHI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, MIDHILESH BHAVANAM, VELITHURUTHU MURI, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691584.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶15

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 584.

¶16

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

=========================== Crl.Appeal No.1116 of 2019

¶22

=========================== Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The subject crime in this case is Crime No.413/2019 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 354, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.3(1) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the police after investigation, has deleted some of the offences initially included and now the offences alleged in this crime are those punishable under Sec.294(b), 323, 324, 354, 506(ii) read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended. The incidents which said to have happened on 21.04.2019 and the First Information Statement has been given by the victim lady on 22.04.2019 and now three persons are arrayed in the accused array.

¶25

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶26

¶27

Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 rendered by the Special Court notified for dealing with SC/ST cases, Kottarakkara, rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail, the appellants herein have filed the instant Crl.Appeal under Sec.14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended.

¶28

The brief of the prosecution case is that the 1^st accused had earlier assaulted the lady de facto complainant Aswathy, in relation to which a complaint was moved by the lady de facto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and A-1 had requested to withdraw it and since the complainant was not willing to withdraw it, A-1 had animosity towards her and on account of the said animosity, the accused persons had formed themselves in an unlawful assembly with weapons near the temple in question on 21.04.2019 at about 5 p.m. and A-1 had insultingly called the lady de facto complainant with her caste name and when the lady's brother had intervened, A-1 had attacked him and A-2 had then caught hold of the neck of the lady's daughter and also attacked one of the lady's relatives and A-3 pushed down one of the other daughters of the lady and had hit on the head of an elderly lady relative of the de facto complainant and that thereby, they had committed the abovesaid offences.

¶29

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that A-1 has already been arrested, remanded and let out on bail. That the prosecution case would clearly reveal that accused persons were aware or should be imputed the knowledge that the lady de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that in view of the allegations in the FIS, the bar under Secs.18 & 18A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended could apply and therefore, this Court will not have the jurisdiction and competence to consider the plea for anticipatory bail on merits.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the allegations in the instant case does not make out any case of offence as per the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that this Court may grant anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions.

¶33

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not in a position to take the view that not even a prima facie case of substance has been made out in respect of offences as per the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and therefore, without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is only to be held that the statutory

¶34

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶35

¶36

bar under Sec.18 & 18A of the said Act would apply and therefore, this Court is not in a position to consider the plea of anticipatory bail on merits in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it goes without saying that the said bar would apply only at the stage of consideration of an anticipatory bail plea and the said bar will have no application, when the bail pleas are made at the stage of either Sec.437 of the Cr.P.C or Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C, at which stage the competent criminal court concerned will have the jurisdiction to consider such pleas for bail on merits, etc.

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellants would then submit that the appellants on the basis of instructions of his parties that the appellants would immediately surrender before the Investigating Officer concerned, without much delay, so that their bail applications could be considered and decided by the jurisdictional Special Court concerned on the same day of their production, after the completion of the interrogation process.

¶38

Taking note of the limited plea made by the appellants, it is ordered as follows:

¶39

(i) The appellants will immediately surrender and personally appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O) concerned in relation to this case, for interrogation process, without any

¶40

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶41

¶42

further delay, at any rate by 9 a.m. on any day on or before 11.11.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the I.O as he deems fit and proper.

¶43

(ii) The appellants will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the above interrogation process.

¶44

(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, the Investigating Officer will immediately produce the appellants before the jurisdictional Special Court concerned, which is notified to deal with the cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended. Thereupon, the Special Court will consider and pass orders on the bail applications of the appellants on the same day of their production, after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellants' counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and after taking due note of the facts and circumstances of this case .

¶45

However, it is made clear and reiterated that the bar under

¶46

Secs.18 & 18A, which is otherwise applicable at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail plea made in terms of Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C, will have no application when the abovesaid bail applications are to be considered by the Special Court concerned, which is at the stage of Sec.437 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the Special Court will consider the said bail plea on merits, after affording opportunity of being heard on both sides and in other words, the Special Court cannot reject the bail plea on the ground that it does not have competence to do so, in view of the bar under Secs.18 & 18A of the said Act.

¶47

CRL.A.No.1116 OF 2019

¶48

¶49

With these observations and directions, the above Bail application will stand disposed of.

¶50

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶51

vgd

Ambu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambu 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

Rahim Abdul Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar K. Vs Jayalakshmi

Santha.D Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Rijo S.R. Vs Ashwani

Shiju Vs State of Kerala

Violet John Vs Daniel