Allowed

Sanjith E P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2023CRL.A/793/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal appeals seeking anticipatory bail against charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC. The court held that despite the offence allegedly occurring inside a house, the circumstances justified bail, and the ban under Section 18 did not permanently bar relief.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted anticipatory bail directed to surrender within two weeks, furnish bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, and report to the investigating officer.

Sanjith E P Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

CRL.A NO. 793 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT in CLRMC 1165/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶9

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶10

SANJITH E P AGED 29 YEARS SON OF PURUSHOTHAMAN E M, ERETHARA HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682504

¶11

BY ADVS. C.C.ANOOP BOBY THOMAS N.RENJU

¶12

RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682504 3 KOMALA RAJU AGED 65 YEARS WIFE OF RAJU, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682504

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.C.ASHI

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.781/2023, THE COURT ON 1/8/2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶23

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶24

CRL.A NO. 781 OF 2023

¶25

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRLMC 1167/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &

¶26

SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶27

CRMC 1167/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶28

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4:

¶29

1 SANEESH K S AGED 32 YEARS S/O.SANTHOSH, KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504

¶30

2 SANAND K S AGED 30 YEARS S/O.SANTHOSH, KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 3 SANTHOSH AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 4 NITHIN K J AGED 22 YEARS S/O.JANAKAN, KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 BY ADVS. BOBY THOMAS C.C.ANOOP N.RENJU AFSAL P. BASHEER

¶31

RESPONDENT/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶32

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

¶33

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682504

¶34

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶35

¶36

3 KOMALA RAJU AGED 65 YEARS KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PANAMPUKADU, VALLARPADAM PO, ERNAKULAMÂ¬, PIN - 682504

¶37

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.C.ASHI

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.793/2023, THE COURT ON 1/8/2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶40

¶41

V.G.ARUN J.

¶42

Crl.Appeal Nos.781 & 793 of 2023

¶43

Dated this the 1st day of August 2023

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Appellants are the accused in Crime No.496 of 2023 of Mulavukadu Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 448,294(b),506,341,323,324, read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The crime was registered pursuant to a complaint by the third respondent that on 9/4/2023, at about 7 p.m. the accused trespassed into the residence of the third respondent, damaged the doors and windows and pushed the third respondent to the floor. Hearing the hue and cry, the third respondent's children rushed to her rescue. Thereupon, they were assaulted with irons rod and oars and abused by caste. Although appellants approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, the prayer was rejected by a cryptic order, referring to the prohibition under Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. Hence, these appeals.

¶46

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶47

¶48

Heard Adv.C.C.Anoop for the appellants and Public Prosecutor M.C.Ashi for the State. Despite service of notice through the investigating officer, the third respondent is neither present nor represented.

¶49

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that a false complaint was lodged by the third respondent, as a counter blast to the crime (Crime No.495/2023) registered against the third respondent's children and others based on the appellants' complaint. It is submitted that the third respondent's children, along with others, had brutally assaulted the appellants resulting in grievous injuries and hospitalisation. The incident resulted in Crime No. 495/2023 being registered at the Mulavukadu Police Station against the assailants for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) , 506, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. On coming to know about the registration of the above crime, the third respondent approached the police raising false allegations, so as to save her children. It is contended that even going by the allegations in the First Information Statement of the third respondent, no offence under the SC & ST ( POA) Act is made out. In elaboration of this contention, it is submitted that the vague allegation of the appellants having addressed the third respondent's children by their caste name is not sufficient to

¶50

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶51

¶52

attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) of the Act. The offences are not attracted even otherwise, as the allegation that the appellants had insulted and intimidated the third respondent's children inside the house. Here, the contention is that the offences will be attracted only if the abuse, insult or intimidation is done within public view. The further contention is that, since the third respondent belong to the Dheevera community and her husband to the scheduled caste, the children does not belong to the scheduled caste, without which offences under the Act will not be attracted.

¶53

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, even if the alleged incident happened inside the third respondent's house, certain neighbours also being present, the offences were committed within public view. Being so, the prohibition under Section 18 of the Act would come into play.

¶54

On close scrutiny of the First Information Reports in Crime Nos.495 & 496 of 2023, it is evident that in the incident both parties had assaulted each other. The only distinction is that the offences under the SC & ST (POA) Act are also alleged against the appellants, whereas the accused in Crime No.495/2023 are charged with only IPC offences. In this context, registration of Crime No.495/2023 and gravity of the

¶55

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶56

¶57

injuries sustained by the appellants assumes relevance. The wound certificates of the appellants produced along with bail applications, reveals that the appellants had sustained injuries on their head and face. Further, the alleged incident having occurred inside the third respondent's house, the contention that it was not within public view also deserve consideration. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.793/2023 himself being a member of the scheduled caste, the prohibition under Section 18 is not applicable in his case. On consideration of the above facts and circumstances, I find the appellants be entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶58

Hence, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the following directions are issued;

¶59

i. The appellants shall surrender before the Investigating officer within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶60

ii. On surrender, the appellants shall be interrogated and in the event of their arrest, released on bail, on each if the appellant furnishing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶61

iii. The appellants shall report before the investigation officer between 10 am and 11 am on every alternative Saturday till filing

¶62

Crl.A.Nos.781 & 793/2023

¶63

¶64

of the final report.

¶65

iv. The appellants shall not interfere with the investigation or

¶66

try to influence the de facto complainant and other witnesses.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

dpk

Sanjith E P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjith E P 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

N M Sreekumar Vs S Sreelakshmi

S. Sreelakshmi (Wife) Aged 34 Years, W/O. N.M. Sreekumar, Sreehari, T.C. 29/517/I, Palkulangara, Vs N.M. Sreekumar (Husband), Aged 35, S/O Mohandas, Neenthamadathil House, Mala P.O., Thrissur, Keral

Dhaneshgopi Vs the Kerala State Financialenterprise Ltd.

Saneesh K S Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Vs Shameela

Dhanya Krishnan Vs Anish Kumar V.C