Ajimon vs State Of Kerala

M.R.Anitha, J

The petitioners are accused No.1 and 2 in crime No.278/2021 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which is registered under Sections 448, 353, 354, 294(b), 342, 506, 341 and 34 of IPC and Section 120(o) of K.P.Act.

It is alleged that on 17.03.2021 at about 14.15 hours the defacto complainant - the Assistant District Development Officer, SC Development Office, Palakkad was wrongfully restrained by the petitioners and they deterred her from discharging her official duties and also outraged her modesty by using abusive language and video-graphed the entire incident by Facebook live, thereby accused committed the aforementioned offences.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are the office bearers of a registered Society, 'Parents and Students Welfare Association' (PASWA) with Reg.No.ALP/TC/153/2021. The members of the said Association complained against the non-distribution of GOI Post Matric Scholarship to deserving students belonging to Scheduled Castes community by the defacto complainant even after they produced the Government Order in this regard and the judgment of this Court. Hence the petitioners went to the office of the defacto complainant to enquire about the matter and there had some arguments with the defacto complainant, out of the same this false case has been foisted against the petitioners.

The learned counsel would contend that the incident alleged to have occurred on 17.03.2021 at about 14.15 hours. But the written complaint was lodged only on 19.03.2021 at 22.40 hours and the police station is nearby the office of the defacto complainant and if at all any untoward act as alleged had actually taken place, she would have contacted the police to manage the situation. Hence, according to him, the delay caused in lodging the FIS itself would falsify the allegations raised against the petitioners. The order of this Court in W.P. (C)No.20340/2020 dated 23.02.2021, which is produced as Annexure A2 and copy of the Government Order (Ms)No.16/2021/SCSTD dated 05.02.2021 has also been produced as Annexure A3, to substantiate the contention put forwarded by him.

The  learned  Public  Prosecutor  on  the  other  hand vehemently opposes in considering the application and according him the first petitioner is hailing from Pathanamthitta district and the second petitioner is from Alappuzha district and in order to make this intentional act they had come to the office of the defacto complainant at Palakkad. It is also his contention that, as the petitioners are leaders of a recognized Association, they are not expected to do such illegal activities of causing hindrance in discharging the official duties and also outraging the modesty of an officer. He also vehemently would contend that they video-graphed the entire incident and published it through Facebook.

Annexure AI - the Registration Certificate issued by the Society Registrar, Alappuzha would prove that the 'PASWA' is a registered Association as per law and the grievance of the petitioners is that the Scheduled Caste (SC) students studying outside the State of Kerala are eligible for Government of India (GOI) Post Matric Scholarship, which is a Central Government Scheme implemented through the State Government. But certain government officials working in the Scheduled Caste Development Department is causing unnecessary hindrance in the distribution of the said scholarship to the deserving students on flimsy grounds. Annexure A2, the copy of the Judgment, would show that aggrieved students have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.20340/2020 seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to give direction to the State of Kerala and also the Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department to continue to grant the Government of India Post Matric Scholarship to the petitioners therein and other deserving students and that writ petition was closed in view of the fact that Annexure A3 Government order has been issued by the Government for enabling the disbursal of educational assistance to the eligible candidates specified therein. Alleging that, in spite of the direction of this Court and also the Government Order, the officers including the defacto complainant are refusing to distribute the scholarship to deserving candidates this protest alleged to have been made by the Association and the petitioners according to them being the office bearers have only talked or rather argued with the defacto complainant in connection with the failure of action.

Though the learned Public Prosecutor at the time of argument would contend that the defacto complainant immediately after the incident has reported to her higher officials, the file produced from the side of the respondent does not contain any material to prima facie substantiate that contention.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, though the incident occurred on 17.03.2021 at 14.15 hours, the FIS was lodged on 19.03.2021 at 22.40 hours. The petitioners have got a specific contention that they only argued with the defacto complainant and they never caused any deterrence in discharging the official duties of the defacto complainant or outraged her modesty also. So it is in this context the delay caused in lodging the FIS prima facie assumes importance. The allegation that they have only approached the defacto complainant for failure of implementing Annexure A2 - Judgment and Annexure A3 - Government order and engaged in an argument with the defacto complainant also cannot be prima facie brushed aside at this stage. So also petitioners alleged to have gone there as representatives of the registered Association making for protest against non-implementation of Annexure A2 and A3. It appears prima facie that the cause is common for safeguarding the interest of students belonging to socially and economically backward strata of the society and they have not gone there for any personal gain. So also in the facts and circumstances, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. On perusing the file produced from the side of the respondents, it is seen that 164 statement of the defacto complainant has also been taken.

Hence, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners can be released on pre-arrest bail but on stringent conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required by him.

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

The Bail Application is allowed accordingly.