Single judge dismissed a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC by an accused in a caste atrocity case. The court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail as the FIR was not prima facie false.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed as Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars the order.
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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 8567 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2087 OF 2021 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER:
ABIJITH A.S., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SAJEEVAN A.K., ALATHIL HOUSE, PANAGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 506.
BY ADVS. P.A.AYUB KHAN NIJI K.SHAHUL
RESPONDENTS:
3 VASANTH SREENIVASAN
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. P.G.SREENIVASAN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VATTAKKAVU, INCHIYANI P .O., EDAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPILLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 512.
R1-R2 BY SMT.C.SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON 14.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
B.A.No.8567 of 2021
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
B.A.No. 8567 of 2021
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14th day of December, 2021
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
of 2021 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. The offences alleged are under Sections 323 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3
B.A.No.8567 of 2021
case, another crime with No. 2086 of 2021 was also registered, which makes this crime illegal. The petitioner pointing out those aspects contends that this is a case where bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act cannot have application, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail.
An attempt to manhandle members of the students organisation to which the de facto complainant also is a member was interrupted by the de facto complaint. Due to that enmity, at about 12.30 p.m. on 21.10.2021, while the de facto complainant was entering the Sree Narayana Guru Chair Building in the M.G.University Campus, the accused persons approached and assaulted him. Accused Nos.1 and 3 hit at his belly and the 2nd accused abused him by calling his caste name in the presence of several others. The accused did so in furtherance of their common intention.
4
B.A.No.8567 of 2021
5
B.A.No.8567 of 2021
required to locate who were all involved in the incidents. It is also reported that until it is ascertained as to the truthfulness of the incident and exact identity of persons really involved no one will be arrested.
6
B.A.No.8567 of 2021
7
B.A.No.8567 of 2021
statement before police that he was abused calling his caste name in the presence of several others, it is not able to say at this stage that the case is prima facie false. The fact that other two crimes were registered is not a reason to say that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false, especially in view of the fact that there occurred clashes between two factions on that day. So is in the case of Annexure A6 crime. That case was registered on the basis of a totally different complaint lodged by another person. Taking into account all such circumstances, I am of the view that the allegation of commission of an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act cannot be said to be false altogether. Hence, the bar created by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to this case. The petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The application is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibiting anticipatory bail applies when the FIR is not prima facie false.
Whether a pre-arrest bail must be granted to an accused if the offence is under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner constitute a true case warranting denial of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prithviraj Chawhan v. Union of othersFollowed¶45
Prithviraj Chawhan v. Union of others [(2020) 4 SCC 727] · Who else cites this
Arul P.Sugathan and others v. State of Kerala and othersFollowed¶46
Arul P.Sugathan and others v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (2) KLT 34]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
ABIJITH A.S.
STATE OF KERALA
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION
VASANTH SREENIVASAN
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
