Allowed

Riyas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2022Bail Appl./4620/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application filed by the petitioner accused under Sections 323 IPC and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court held that prima facie, the offence under Section 3(1)(s) was not attracted as it requires commission in public view which is absent. Bail granted with sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner directed to be released on bail upon execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with sureties and compliance with periodic appearance and non-interference co

Riyas Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.571 OF 2021 OF N.PARUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RIYAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, KOOTTUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, FIRE STATION ROAD, PARAVOOTHARA, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 520.

¶9

BY ADV. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM RURAL, PIN - 683 515.

¶13

3 RAJU AGED 62 YEARS KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, FIRE STATION ROAD, PARAVOOTHARA, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 520.

¶14

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC ST Atrocities Act' for short). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 07.05.2021, the petitioner assaulted the de-facto complainant and intentionally insulted him by calling him by his caste name.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are some other issues between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner and that on the de-facto complainant attacking the wife of the petitioner, Crime No.570 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station was registered against the de-facto complainant alleging commission of offences under Section 447, 326 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station was registered only as a

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

counter blast to the filing of the aforesaid complaint by the wife of the petitioner against the de-facto complainant.

¶25

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the matter is under investigation and also points out that since the provisions of the SC ST Atrocities Act are attracted, an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Atrocities Act requires the commission of an offence in public view, prima facie , the offence under the provisions of the SC ST Atrocities Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The only other allegation against the petitioner is that under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a bailable offence. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, subject to the following

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

conditions:

¶31

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶32

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, whenever called upon to do so;

¶33

(iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District;

¶34

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶35

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.571 of 2021 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶36

Any observation in the order regarding the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 4620 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is only for the purpose of considering the maintainability of this bail

¶40

application and shall not be treated as a finding on that point.

¶41

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶42

Riyas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas v. State of Kerala

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

Deepak Mani Vs the State of Kerala

Vineesh K.B Vs State of Kerala

Jyothish, Vs the State of Kerala

Badarul Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Bijali Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Chandran Vs State of Kerala