This original petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 235/2013 of Perumbavoor police station to remove the findings in Ext.P3 order and give direction to the investigating officer to conduct investigation independently under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.235/2013 of Perumbavoor police station registered on the basis of a statement given by the petitioner against respondents 1 to 3 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 452, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act'). Respondents 1 to 3 filed Ext.P2 bail application and the learned Sessions Judge granted bail as per Ext.P3 order wherein it was observed that there are no necessary ingredients mentioned to attract the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act. This observation was made without hearing the complainant at the time when the bail application was considered. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the investigating officer is likely to be moved away the observations made in the bail order. So he has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i. Call for the records and files relating to Crl.M.C.1336/2013 dated 11.7.2013 of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and delete the observations and findings made in Para 3 of Ext.P3 order regarding sustainability of the investigation in the matter of incorporation of the section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act.
ii. Direct the fourth respondent to proceed with the investigation of Crime 235/2013 of the perumbavoor Police Station without in any manner affecting the observations made in Para 3 of Ext.P3 order regarding sustainability of the investigation in the matter of incorporation of the section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act in Criminal M.C.1336/2013 dated 11.7.2013 of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.
iii. Issue such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances which may deem of the above Original Petition (Criminal).
3. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this Court felt that the original petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Though notice was served on respondents 1 to 3, none appeared for respondents 1 to 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will be satisfied if it is observed that the investigating officer has to conduct investigation untrammelled by the observations made in the bail application and conduct investigation independently and file final report on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation.
5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
6. It is seen from the allegations in the petition that on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant Perumbavoor police has registered Ext.P1 First Information Report as Crime No.235/2013 against one Aneesh and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 542, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act. It is seen from the documents produced that respondents 1 to 3, who have been subsequently arrayed as accused 2 to 4, filed Ext.P2 application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned Ext.P3 order disposed of the bail application directing the petitioners to surrender before the concerned Magistrate court and move for regular bail. But while making such order, in paragraph 3 of the order it was mentioned that the allegations are insufficient to attract the offence under the SC/ST Act. Such an observation has been made by the learned Sessions Judge without hearing the complainant. So under the circumstances, this Court feels that such an observation is unwarranted at that stage while disposing of the application for anticipatory bail directing the petitioners to surrender before the concerned Magistrate court and move for regular bail. So this Court feels that the original petition can be disposed of as follows:
The investigating officer namely the 4th respondent is directed to conduct investigation untrammelled by the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in Ext.P3 order and conduct investigation independently and file final report on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation.
With the above observations, the original petition is disposed of. Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
/true copy/ cl P.S to Judge