The petitioner herein is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.383 of 2014 of Aralam Police Station, Kannur district for offences registered under Sections 452 and 354A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 27.09.2014 at about 17:15 hours, the accused had trespassed into the house of the lady de facto complainant and abused her by calling her caste name and caught hold of her hands by calling her caste name. Thereupon the de facto complainant lodged the First Information Statement on 29.09.2014 before the police which led to the registration of the instant crime.
3. Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the allegations have been falsely foisted against the petitioner by the husband of the de facto complainant one Mr.Sibi, who had trespassed into the house of the mother-in-law of the petitioner herein, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and on
account of the animosity for lodging a complaint earlier against the said Sibi, he on 28.09.2014 assaulted the petitioner's mother, which resulted in registration of Crime No.384 of 2014 of Aralam Police Station under Sections 452 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is only to wriggle out of the criminal culpability arising out of the aforementioned incident which led to the assault suffered by the petitioner's mother-in-law, that the de facto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the instant crime. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 354A alleged in this case is bailable and that but for the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner in the instant crime is the one under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that keeping in view the decision of this Court in Shanu V State of Kerala (2000(3) KLT 452) the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to consider and grant bail in such cases and that going by the very nature of the allegations raised in this crime so as to allege the non-bailable offence under Section 452 of the
IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Magistrate may be directed to grant bail, if such an application is made in that behalf.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of the inhibition under Section 18 of the above Act, there is embargo placed for consideration of anticipatory bail plea in cases involving offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and to apply for bail in which case this Court may direct the learned Magistrate to consider such application on the same day and grant the same in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in the case Shanu V State of Kerala, reported in 2000(3) KLT 452.
Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner surrendering before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and submitting application for bail, then, the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned shall consider such bail application on the same day itself and take decision in accordance with the legal principles laid down by this Court in in the case Shanu V State of Kerala, reported in 2000(3) KLT 452.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge