Dismissed

Muthas @ Muthukutty v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC24 Sept 2020Bail Appl./2846/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-judge order disposing of a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the application for adult applicants and excluded the juvenile from the proceedings, directing consideration by the Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Bail application is dismissed for applicants 1, 3, and 4. Applicant 2 (juvenile) excluded; to be considered by Juvenile Justice Board.

Muthas @ Muthukutty Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2846 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.241/2020 OF Nenmara Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 MUTHAS @ MUTHUKUTTY AGED 47 YEARS S/O. ANSAR, CHACKRAI HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYAD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, THIRUVAZHIYAD P. O., CHAKKARAI - 678510, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SHAKEER M. AGED 17 1/2 YEARS, S/O. MUTHAS @ MUTHUKUTTY, CHACKRAI HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYAD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, THIRUVAZHIYAD P. O., CHAKKARAI - 678510, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3 JIBIN MATHEW

¶11

AGED 31 YEARS

¶12

S/O. MATHEW OUSEPH, KARAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYAD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, THIRUVAZHIYAD P. O., CHAKKARAI - 678510, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

4 ANU V. MATHEW AGED 30 YEARS

¶14

S/O. MATHEW, VANDANATH HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYAD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, THIRUVAZHIYAD P. O., CHAKKARAI - 678510, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NENMARA POLICE STATION, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

3 ADDL.R3 SATHEESH AGED 24 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN, CHACKRAI HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYAD VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, THIRUVAZHIYAD P O, CHAKKARAI, 678510,

¶20

Bail Appl..No.2846 OF 2020 2

¶21

PALAKKAD DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.06.2020 IN CRL.MA NO. 1/2020

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Bail Appl..No.2846 OF 2020 3

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Dated this the 24th day of September 2020

¶28

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

Applicants are accused in Crime No.241/2020 of Nenmara Police

¶30

Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. ( 'Atrocities Act’ for short)

¶31

The prosecution case in brief is thus:- Applicants in furtherance of common intention to cause hurt to the de facto complainant wrongfully restrained him knowing that he is a member of scheduled caste and assaulted him by means of dangerous weapon like wood stick and caused injury all over his body. The 1st accused also attempted to hit him on his head with a stick, which could have proved fatal had he not evaded it. Hence, the applicants attempted to commit culpable homicide.

¶32

The applicants contend that the offence under the Atrocities Act is not attracted because the applicants did not know that he was belonging to a scheduled caste community. It is also stated that it was the de facto complainant and others who were

¶33

Bail Appl..No.2846 OF 2020 4

¶34

the aggressors, since the incident had occurred near the house of the accused. They were attempting to defend themselves and in the process some injuries were caused to the de facto complainant as well. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant is a notorious criminal having several crimes registered against him and this would indicate that he had deliberately come towards the applicants to assault them.

¶35

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

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would contend that prima facie an offence under the Atrocities Act as stated above is not attracted in this case. He relies on several decisions of this Court to substantiate his argument. It is true that prima facie if an offence under the Atrocities Act is not attracted, the embargo under Section 18 & 18A of the Atrocities Act would not come into play. But in this instant case, the allegation of the prosecution is that the applicants had attacked the de facto complainant knowing that he belonged to a scheduled caste community. Hence, the fact whether there is a case that whether the allegation is true or not is a matter of fact, which needs to be proved before the trial court. Therefore, the

¶37

Bail Appl..No.2846 OF 2020 5

¶38

applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, it is noted that the 2nd applicant is only a juvenile and there is no need for him to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The application as regards him is to be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board and therefore he is excluded from this application. The application as regards applicants 1, 3 and 4 for anticipatory bail is only to be dismissed.

¶39

The bail application is dismissed.

¶40

ASHOK MENON

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

rmm

Muthas @ Muthukutty v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthas @ Muthukutty v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Sajan .S.S Vs Public Prosecutor

Sahadulla Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez.v.P Vs State of Kerala

Pranjith A.L. Vs State of Kerala

Jophy.P.Jacob Vs State of Kerala