Petitioner is accused in Crime No.1014 of 2014 of the Angamali Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('the Act' for short), apprehends arrest and has filed the application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 15.04.2014 at about 11 a.m., the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant who belongs to scheduled caste and insulted him calling caste name in public view. It is submitted that Sec.18 of the Act bars an application of this nature.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner also. It is submitted that the allegations are not true.
4. Having regard to the nature of allegations made, I am inclined to think that this application cannot be entertained. But, it is open to the learned magistrate to consider the application for bail and pass appropriate orders in view of the decision in Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 452].
The application is disposed of as under.
1. Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1014 of 2014 of the Angamali Police station on 28.05.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
2. In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.
3. After interrogation in case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
4. On such production it is open to the petitioner to seek regular bail with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor at least three working days in advance.
5. If for any reason custody of the petitioner is required, it is open to the investigating officer also to move application before the learned magistrate for the same.
6. Learned magistrate shall consider the application(s) having regard to all relevant circumstances including whether custody of the petitioner is required for recovery of any material object and pass appropriate orders as early as possible .
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE /True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge