Arun vs State Of Kerala

N. Nagaresh, J

This appeal arises out of order dated 24.07.2023 on the files of the Court of Session/Special Judge for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ernakulam Division in Crl.M.C. No.2032/2023.

The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.374/2023 of Kalady Police Station registered for offences under Sections 450, 341, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) and 294(b) IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Prosecution alleged that the appellant committed damage to tapioca plants cultivated by the de facto complainant in the property owned by the Panchayat situated near the appellant's residence. The wife of the de facto complainant questioned this. On account of this enmity, the appellant trespassed to the sit out of the residential house of the de facto complainant with a sword stick and caught hold on the neck of the son of the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries using sword stick. The de facto complainant and his wife when intervened to protect their son, sustained injuries inflicted by the petitioner. The de facto complainant and family belong to Scheduled Caste. FIR was lodged on 22.05.2023 and the appellant was arrested on 24.05.2023.

The appellant invoked Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. The Sessions Judge noted that the injuries inflicted by the petitioner are of serious nature, the de facto complainant's right hand middle finger was amputated and having regard to the nature of allegations, the appellant is not entitled to bail. The application was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2023, the petitioner has filed appeal invoking Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant as mandated under Section 15A(3), the de facto complainant did not appear or resist the appeal.

The appellant's counsel urged that the allegations levelled against the appellant are baseless and registration of crime is only to harass the appellant. The investigation process is almost complete. The court below ought to have considered the vengeance of the de facto complainant resulting from the altercation between the appellant and the wife of the de facto complainant. Continued custody of the appellant would affect the livelihood of the appellant's family. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedents and the appellant is a drug addict. The appellant has attempted to cause death of the son of the de facto complainant. In the circumstances, the application for bail is liable to be rejected.

It is evident from the pleadings that the alleged incident occurred on 21.05.2023 and a First Information Report was lodged on 22.05.2023. The appellant is under detention from 24.05.2023. It is evident that the de facto complainant had previous enmity with the appellant. Whether the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would apply on the basis of the allegations is a matter to be decided after trial. The investigation of the crime has proceeded to considerable extent. In the facts of the case, I find no reason to detain the appellant further in custody. The appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant/accused shall be released on bail on his executing bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

(ii) The appellant/accused shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

(iii) The appellant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without prior permission of the Court.

(iv) The appellant/accused shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported to came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail granted.