Dismissed

Abu Sufiyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2022CRL.A/954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application under the SC/ST Act. The court held that bail was correctly barred because the prosecution alleged offences under the scheduled IPC sections involving serious injury, warranting custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order dismissing the anticipatory bail application was upheld without interference.

Abu Sufiyan 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 A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 18TH ASWINA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 954 OF 2022

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2022 IN CRMC NO.28/2022 OF SPECIAL
COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANANTHAVADI

¶6

APPELLAN/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

ABU SUFIYAN
AGED 32 YEARS
SON OF A.K.ABU, ANTHURIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PAMBRA P.O., IRULAM VILLAGE, BATHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592
BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
RAJEE P MATHEWS
AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL

¶8

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031
BY SR.PP-SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

CRL.A NO. 954 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This appeal arises out of the order in Crl.M.C.No.28/2022, dated 3.9.2022 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of SC/ST Act Offences.

¶15

As per the impugned order, anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶17

Though notice was served upon the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant did not appear.

¶18

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and the de facto complainant attacked the appellant and there arose a quarrel. Apart from that, all allegations of the prosecution are baseless and the appellant is ready to be abide by any conditions as a pre-requisite for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of bail, highlighting the specific bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶20

CRL.A NO. 954 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

1989, (for short ‘The SC/ST Act’) as well as the overt acts, whereby the de

¶23

facto complainant sustained fracture of facial bones.

¶24

In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused herein who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, on 21.8.2022 at 10.30 p.m.., came to the colony of the de facto complainant in his scooter, for fish sale. Thereafter, when the accused demanded the amount due from the de facto complainant, there was a verbal altercation, while so, the accused tresspassed upon the courtyard of the de facto complainant and beat on the face, chest, hands and legs of the de facto complainant by using a stick, in turn, the de facto complainant sustained injuries including fracture on nasal bone. On the above facts, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 447,324 and 326 of IPC as well as under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶25

It is a settled law that when there is a prima facie case, anticipatory bail, in cases involving in offences under the SC/ST Act, is specifically barred. Here, the specific allegation is that the accused assaulted the de facto complainant by using a stick and in turn sustained serious injuries including fracture, whereby the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 447,324 and 326 of IPC apart

¶26

CRL.A NO. 954 OF 20224

¶27

from alleging that the accused also committed offence under Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶28

In this matter, the medical record in the form of wound certificate would show that the de facto complainant sustained injuries

¶29

including fracture as already pointed out. In such a case, even without incorporation of an offence under the SC/ST Act, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of the weapon used to commit the offence, are

¶30

essential to accomplish meaningful investigation and successful prosecution. In this matter, the offences alleged under the IPC would include offences under Sections 447 and 324 of IPC which were included in the schedule appended to Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act provides that, whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence specified in the schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member shall be punishable. As far the knowledge contemplated in the Section, same is to be borne out from the records. Going through the facts of the case as discussed, it is not a case in which anticipatory bail

¶31

is liable to be granted. Therefore, the learned Special Judge rightly

¶32

CRL.A NO. 954 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

dismissed the application and the said dismissal does not require any interference.

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN

JUDGE

CRL.A NO. 954 OF 20226

¶41

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 954/2022

¶42

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.09.2022 OF SPECIAL COURT,
MANANTHAVADY
RESPONDENT’S
NIL
ANNEXURES

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

PA To Judge

Abu Sufiyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abu Sufiyan 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

Claramma Thomas Vs K.M. Thomas

Tess Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Tess Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Jithesh K Vs Theertha Suresh

Kulsam Beevi Ismail Vs Jusin Sebastian

1. Biju T. Chacko Vs 1. Sunny.P.Chacko