Allowed

Muthunni Alias Sulaiman, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2023Bail Appl./1634/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court found the genuineness of the prosecution case prima facie doubtful as the FIR was registered three days after an interim injunction was granted to the victim, holding that the final report filed should be decided by the trial court after imposing bail c

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions including surrender within ten days, execution of bond, cooperation with trial, no intimidation of witnesses, no leaving India without permission, and no commit

Muthunni Alias Sulaiman, Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1634 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.0020/2021 OF AGALI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MUTHUNNI ALIAS SULAIMAN, AGED 59 YEARS KOCHIPLAKKAL HOUSE, CHAVADIYOOR PO, AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582

¶9

BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAMERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶12

2 MARI, AGED 67 YEARS CHALAYOOR OORU, PUTHOOR, AGALI, PALAKKAD, PIN -678581

¶13

BY SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 1634 OF 2021

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2023

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in crime No.20/2021 of Agali police station, Palakkad, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, and 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(f), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘The SC/ST Act’ hereinafter).

¶21

Since offence under Section SC/ST (POA) Act is involved, notice as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act was issued to the defacto complainant through the Station House Officer and the same was served and the learned Public Prosecutor placed a memo evidencing service of such notice for the perusal of this Court. But the defacto complainant did not appear.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that at about 15.30 hours on 18.01.2021, the first accused along with two other identifiable persons, criminally trespassed upon the

¶23

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 1634 OF 2021

¶25

property of the defacto complainant at Chalayoor and assaulted the defacto complainant. This is the premise, on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above said offences.

¶26

While pressing for anticipatory bail, in a case where there is specific bar under Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegations are false and the crime was registered as a retaliatory measure when the accused obtained an order of injunction against the defacto complainant and others in I.A.No.39/2021 in O.S.No.11/2021 pending before the Munsiff Court, Mannarkkad.

¶27

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of injunction was passed on 15.01.2021 and the order was served on the same day and also on the same day, the Commissioner visited the property to ascertain the matters. Thereafter, as an after thought, the present crime was registered without any basis to implicate the petitioner herein in very serious offences.

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 1634 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the materials available established the prosecution case and on investigation, final report already filed.

¶31

On evaluation of the materials, the registration of this crime is evidently after three days of the grant of interim injunction against the defacto complainant and others and that too, after the visit of the commissioner. Therefore, the genuineness of the case is a matter of trial since final report already filed.

¶32

In the decision reported in [2020 (2) KHC 423 : AIR 2020 SC 1036 : (2020) 4 SCC 727 : MANU/SC/0157/2020],

¶33

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India(UOI) & Ors. , a three Bench of the Apex Court considered the impact of Section 18-A and it was held that as far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail . Thus the law is settled by the Apex Court after incorporation of Section 18-A also that there is no

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 1634 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

absolute bar in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail in cases alleging commission of offences under the SC/ST Act if the prosecution allegations do not constitute any offence under the SC/ST Act and the court has the power to grant anticipatory bail if the prosecution allegations do not make a prima facie case.

¶37

Having appraised the facts of the case and the genesis of the case, after filing a civil suit and after getting an interim injunction against the defacto complainant, I am inclined to hold that the genuineness of the prosecution case is prima facie doubtful, but I leave the merit of the case to be decided by the trial court based on the evidence, since final report already filed. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on conditions:

¶38

In the result, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail on conditions:

¶39

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Special Court within ten days from today.

¶40

ii. On such production, Special Court shall

¶41

¶42

BAIL APPL. NO. 1634 OF 2021

¶43

release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) by himself and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court.

¶44