Single judge of Kerala HC dismissed anticipatory bail for accused charged with SC/ST atrocity offences. Ruling held that a prima facie case exists under the SC/ST Act, creating a statutory embargo that bars the court from granting bail.
Bail application dismissed; directed to appear before jurisdictional court for regular bail.
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 ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943
Bail Appl.No.1164 OF 2021
CRIME NO.12/2021 OF Kottappady Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
1 ALBERT AUGUSTINE K.J AGED 73 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, PENSIONER, HOUSE NO.XII/642 IN KOTTAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAMTALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-686692.
2 JESSY ALBERT AGED 65 YEARS, W/O ALBERT AUGUSTINE K.J., HOUSE NO.XII/642 IN KOTTAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAMTALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-686692.
3 ANJU ALBERT KONNOTH AGED 30 YEARS, D/O ALBERT AUGUSTINE K.J., HOUSE NO.XII/642 IN KOTTAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAMTALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-686692.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.
2 AMMINI, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O KORANA (ALSO KNOWN AS PAREL RAMAN), PASREL HOUSE, NO. 12/640, KOTTAPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN-686692.
R1 BY SMT.V.SREEJA-PP
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Bail Appl.No.1164 OF 2021
O R D E R
Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
No.12/2021 of Kottappady Police Station for having
allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (s) and (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC/ST Act”).
04.01.2021 due to previous enmity towards the de facto
complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, the applicants, who are not a member of the Scheduled Caste community, allegedly abused her in obscene language and thereafter called her by her caste name and thus committed the offences.
3
Bail Appl.No.1164 OF 2021
not true and that they are innocent and that it is
because of other ulterior motives that a false case has been foisted against them and that it is not possible that the applicants would have committed the offences as alleged. The applicants are father, mother and daughter. They do not have any criminal antecedents, and therefore, they seek pre-arrest bail.
the learned Public Prosecutor. The de facto
complainant though served with notice, did not appear.
to anticipatory bail, because prima facie an offence under the aforesaid provisions of law is made out.
Whether the allegation is true or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court. Prima facie calling a person of the Scheduled Caste by her caste name would
definitely attract an offence under the SC/ST Act. Therefore, an embargo under Section 18A would prevent
Bail Appl.No.1164 OF 2021
this Court from exercising jurisdiction of granting bail to the applicants. The bail application is therefore dismissed with a direction to the applicants to appear before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
dkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail given the embargo under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act.
Whether a prima facie offence is made out in alleging calling a Scheduled Caste person by their caste name.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Albert Augustine K.J
Jessy Albert
Anju Albert Konnoth
State of Kerala
Ammini
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
