Antony Job vs State Of Kerala

K.Babu, J

This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 22.04.2024 in Crl.M.C.No.1183 of 2024 passed by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

The appellant is the accused in Crime No.1591/2023 of Mulavukad Police Station. The appellant is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 506 IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Prosecution case:-

The de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On 12.09.2023 at 5 pm, the appellant and the other accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his friend while they were returning to their home and humiliated the de facto complainant by calling his caste name within public view. The appellant and the other accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt on the de facto complainant by means of an iron pipe. They committed the above acts with the knowledge that if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea on the ground that it is hit by Section 18 of the Act.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prima facie establish the offences punishable under the Act.

I have gone through the Case Diary which reveals that the prosecution could prima facie establish that the appellant committed offences punishable under the Act. Therefore, the bail plea of the appellant is barred under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge stands confirmed.

It is legally permissible for this Court to direct the accused to surrender before the Jurisdictional Court while rejecting a prayer for anticipatory bail [See: Nathu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0360/2021 : (2021 (3) KLT Online 1113 (SC) and Rahul v. State of Kerala (ILR 2021 (4) Kerala 64)].

The appellant is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from this date. On his surrender before the jurisdictional Court, if the appellant prefers an application seeking regular bail, the Court shall dispose of the application on the same day itself in the light of the principles declared by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51]. The appellant is at liberty to serve a copy of the application seeking bail in advance to the Public Prosecutor and the counsel who appeared for the de facto complainant. On receipt of the advance copy of the bail application, the Public Prosecutor shall see that notice is served on the victim/de facto complainant before the bail application is heard.