Dismissed

Mohammed Sahfi M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2020/4233/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail. The court held that statutory provisions expressly bar such bail and directed the petitioner to seek regular bail from the trial court. The application was disposed of with an instruction to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within two weeks.

Mohammed Sahfi M. Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4233 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 71/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.289/2020 OF Kalpakanchery Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

MOHAMMED SAHFI M. AGED 25 YEARS S/O SHAJAHAN, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, KURUNKAD, KANMANAM P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN -676 551

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN -682 031

¶13

2 THAMI, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KUNJIKKARI, RESIDING AT KALATHILPPADY HOUSE, ANDIPADI, KANMANAM, KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.4233 of 2020

ASHOK MENON(J)

B.A.No.4233 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 09^th day of October, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶23

The applicant is the sole accused in Cr.MP No. 71 of 2020 on the files of the Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act cases, Manjeri, Malappuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2) (va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, herein after referred to as “The Atrocities Act” in short.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.05.2020 at about 4.45 pm, while the defacto complainant was riding on his Motor Cycle, the applicant allegedly restrained him wrongfully, hurled abuses at him and thereafter assaulted him with a stone, causing a grievous injury by means of the defacto complainant losing one of his teeth and that the defacto complainant being a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, the act is attracting an offence under the ‘Atrocities Act.’

¶25

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true

¶26

B.A.No.4233 of 2020

¶27

¶28

and that he has been implicated falsely in this case under the Atrocities Act to see that he is incarcerated. The injuries are not life threatening and that he had not done anything to contribute to the injuries which had been sustained by the defacto complainant. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that he may be released on Anticipatory Bail.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the alleged offence under the ‘Atrocities Act’ is not attracted, because, in the initial FI Statement, which has been produced before the Court there is no statement that the act was done by the applicant knowing that the defacto complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the last sentence of the FI Statement has been included subsequently and the manner in which it is written indicates that it is only an interpolation made with the intention to attract the offence under the ‘Atrocities Act.’

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the FIR is simultaneously registered in consequence to recording of the FI Statement. Even though, it is added subsequently, it will not challenge the veracity of the allegation because the FIR very clearly states that the applicant had committed the offence knowing fully well that the defacto complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

¶31

I am in perfect agreement with the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. There cannot be any interpolation subsequently because, the FI

¶32

B.A.No.4233 of 2020

¶33

¶34

Statement as well as the FIR are sent forthwith to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and there is no case of delay. However, the applicant is at liberty to come up with such argument before the Trial Court as and when the time comes during the trial. Prima facie, there is an offence committed under the ‘Atrocities Act’ attracting offence under sub-Sections (2)(v) and (2)(va) of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act. The offences allegedly committed by the applicant attract imprisonment upto 10 years and these offences are also Scheduled Offences as per the ‘Atrocities Act.’ The only option for the applicant is to apply for Regular Bail before the Jurisdictional Court as contemplated under the ‘Atrocities Act’ and there is a specific embargo under Sections 18 and 18(a) of the ‘Atrocities Act’ from entertaining an application for Anticipatory Bail. Hence, the application is only to be dismissed with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks. The investigating Officer shall produce the accused before the Jurisdictional Court, where he is at liberty to apply for a Regular Bail, which shall be considered preferably on the same day by the designated Court.

¶35

The bail application is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶38

avs

Mohammed Sahfi M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sahfi M. 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

Aneesh.K Vs State of Kerala

Athul@Appu Vs State of Kerala

Kannan Vs State of Kerala

U.Rama Prasad Menon @ U.R.Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Jayahari Vs State of Kerala

Saran Joseph Vs Public Prosecutor