Dismissed

Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020Bail Appl./1050/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that the presence of prohibitions under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act made this an unfit case for extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C and directed the applicant to seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender and apply for regular bail before the jurisdictional court.

Biju Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1050 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 116/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.429/2019 OF Meppayur Police Station, Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

BIJU AGED 46 YEARS S/O KUNHIKANNAN, KUNHOTH THAZHE HOUSE, IRINGATH POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 523.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.LASITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶13

2 ADDL. R2 RAJESH MOOTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VILLAYATTUR, MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKKODE-673524. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.06.2020 IN CRL. MA NO. 1/2020 IN BA NO. 1050/2020.

¶14

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.1050 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 5th day of October 2020

¶20

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶21

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

No.429/2019 of Meppayur Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 326 and 506 IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶24

23.12.2019 at about 8.30 p.m, at the shop of Kunhikannan at Vilayattoor, the applicant

¶25

allegedly restrained the de facto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste and hit him with a

¶26

key of his vehicle with perforated his eardrum and caused permanent loss of hearing and thereafter, he also kicked him and hurled abuses at him and

¶27

Bail Appl..No.1050 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

committed the offence knowing that the applicant was a member of Scheduled Caste community.

¶30

The applicant states that the allegations

¶31

are not true and that he is a construction worker

¶32

living with his wife and two daughters. It is stated that the marriage of the elder daughter was scheduled to take place on 02.01.2020. The de facto complainant had trespassed into his property and peeped into the bathroom of his house while his wife was bathing. He was caught red-handed and in order to save him from the aforesaid act of

¶33

trespass and outraging the modesty of the applicant’s wife, the de facto complainant has

¶34

foisted a false case against the applicant and

¶35

therefore, he prays that he may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

The de facto complainant was served with a

¶38

¶39

Bail Appl..No.1050 OF 2020

¶40

notice, but none appeared. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the first instance, the FIR did not contain an offence under Section 326 IPC. Subsequently, it was incorporated and only after a gap of three months, the offence under the atrocities act has been incorporated, which itself would indicate that the entire prosecution case is falsity and he has been falsely implicated in the crime due to political

¶41

reasons and also as a counterblast to the

¶42

applicant taking action against him for having peeped into the bathroom of his house.

¶43

Considering the entire facts and

¶44

circumstance of this case, I find that prima facie

¶45

it cannot be said that the offence is not

¶46

attracted because it is the matter of evidence to

¶47

decide whether the applicant knew the fact that

¶48

the de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled

¶49

Caste community and knowing that he committed the

¶50

Bail Appl..No.1050 OF 2020

¶51

¶52

offence under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore,

¶53

the proper procedure for the applicant is to apply for regular bail before the designated court and

¶54

if it is disallowed he has to prefer an appeal on that.

¶55

Hence, I find that this is not a fit case

¶56

where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court

¶57

to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the

¶58

applicant, particularly in view of the prohibitions under Section 18 and 18A of the

¶59

Atrocities Act. The application is therefore dismissed with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju 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

Muhammed Nazim K.S Vs State of Kerala

Shihana.S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop, Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

K Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala