Appeal against dismissal of anticipatory bail application. Court held that F.I.R. prima facie constitutes offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, thus invoking the absolute bar on pre-arrest bail under Sections 18 and 18A. Dismissed appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no anticipatory bail granted; impugned order of the Sessions Court upheld.
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 MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 3RD MAGHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1278 OF 2019
AGAINST CRMC 1684/2019 DATED 30-10-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RENJITH M.T AGED 33 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, PADINHAREMOOLA, CHUZHALI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
ADDL R2. KANNAN.K, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KALLAKUDIAN HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM, PADINHAREMOOLA, KANNUR DISTRICT
Addl.second respondent is impleaded as per order dated 13.11.2019 in Crl.M.A.No.01/2019)
SRI AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.01.2020, THE COURT ON 23.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
Crl.A.No.1278 of 2019
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2020
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
The material averments in the aforesaid statement are as follows: On 12.09.2019, at about 16.00 hours, the de facto complainant went to the shop conducted by one Murali for purchasing goods. At that time, the shop was closed. The de facto complainant sat on a chair at the verandha of the shop. The appellant/accused was sitting on another chair at the verandha of the shop. Then, the accused called the de facto complainant by his caste name and caught hold of the collar of his shirt. When the de facto complainant removed the hand of the accused from the collar of his shirt, the accused took a stone and hit him with it aiming the blow on the head. However, the blow with the stone fell on the shoulder of the de facto complainant causing fracture to the bone of the shoulder. The stone was broken into two pieces. Then, the accused hit on the head of the de facto complainant with a piece of the stone. The accused is not a member of a scheduled caste. The de facto complainant is a member of a scheduled caste.
4
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the Court of Session, Thalassery. As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the aforesaid application holding that it is a case where the de facto complainant has sustained grievous injury and that there is bar under Section 18A of the Act in granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
5
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
contend that the first information statement given by the de facto complainant and the statements of other witnesses disclose the ingredients of the offence under the Act which is alleged against the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is absolute bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act against granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the Act.
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
6
whether a prima facie case is made out attracting the provisions of the Act. If it is found by the court that a prima facie case is not made out against the accused and that the allegations against the accused do not attract any of the offences under the Act, the bar created under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act against granting anticipatory bail, does not come into play. Judicial scrutiny is permissible to examine facts of a case to find out whether, prima facie, an offence under the Act has been committed or not by a person, before refusing him the benefit of anticipatory bail (See Binesh v. State of Kerala : 2020(1) KHC 240).
7
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
8
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
9
Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, it has to be shown that the accused committed the offences against a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or the property belonging to such person with the knowledge that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
10
of the present case which would prevent the court from granting pre-arrest bail to the appellant.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
True Copy
PS to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the first information statement prima facie attract offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act prevents the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the learned Sessions Judge committed any illegality or impropriety in dismissing the anticipatory bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Binesh v. State of KeralaReferred¶11
Binesh v. State of Kerala
Ashrafi v. State of U.PReferred¶60
Ashrafi v. State of U.P
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Renjith M.T
State of Kerala
Kannan.K
R. Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
