The appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail was dismissed. The court held that the victim belonging to a scheduled caste attracts the bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST POA Act, which has IPC 341, 323, 376, and SC/ST POA Act provisions, despite the age gap.
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.
CRL.A.No.729 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942
CRL.A.No.729 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 649/2020 DATED 10-07-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE
CRIME NO.20/2018 OF KOORANCHUNDU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED SHIYAS, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ASHRAF, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIKKODI P.O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.C.RAJESH SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.HARITHA JAYAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOORACHUNDA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
ADDTIONAL R3 IMPLEADED:
ADDL. ANU K.DAMODARAN R3 PULIYAKKANDY HOUSE HOUSE, ONHIL, KOORACHUNDU, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673527.
IMPEADED AS THIRD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 12/10/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020.
R1-2 BY SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.GP ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.729 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
Anticipatory bail sought by the
petitioner/accused was rejected presumably in view of the bar under Section 18A of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The offence alleged are Sections 341, 323, 376 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST ( POA) Act. Admittedly, the victim is a woman belonged to scheduled caste. Hence the bar under Section 18 A of the SC/ST (POA) Act would come into play, unless prima facie it appears that no offence under the said Act would stand attracted. The age difference between the accused and the victim cannot by itself a sufficient reason to bring the matter outside the purview of the Act. Appeal fails, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
CRL.A.No.729 OF 2020 3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 19/2018 OF KOORANCHUND POLICE STATION.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act applies despite the age difference between the accused and the victim.
Whether this appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MUHAMMED SHIYAS
THE STATE OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
