Babu Raj 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.

The appellant is the accused in Crime No.1043/2024 of Kilimanoor Police Station. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution case as discernible from the impugned order reads thus:

“On 17.10.2024 at 6.30 pm., petitioner uttered abusive words against the defacto complainant and called his caste name. It is alleged that petitioner fisted on the shoulder and snatched away Rs.5,450/- from the pocket of defacto complainant. He criminally intimidated and punched on his nose and thereafter, he attacked him with an iron bar and thereby he suffered bleeding injury on his head. Defacto complainant is a member of ‘Hindu Kurava’ community and petitioner belongs to ‘Ezhava’ community. Petitioner committed the crime on knowing that the defacto complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste.”

Notice was served on the victim. He did not turn up.

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

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been implicated in a false case. The learned counsel further submitted that the victim filed a complaint as a counter blast to the incident in which the appellant sustained injuries at the hands of the victim. The learned counsel relied on the OP card issued from the Community Health Centre, Kesavapuram (Annexure 2), the Discharge Summary issued from Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu (Annexure 3) and the FIR registered against the victim based on the complaint filed by the appellant (Annexure 4) in support of his contentions.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the bail plea of the appellant is barred under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that granting anticipatory bail to the appellant will affect the progress of the investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor added that the appellant is accused in another case. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is required as the weapon allegedly used is to be recovered.

The Case Diary is made available. I have gone through the Case Diary, the FIS and other materials collected by the investigating agency. The FIS and other materials reveal that the prosecution could prima facie establish the offences under the act against him. Therefore, the bail plea is barred under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order 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 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 it on the same day itself in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51] and paragraph 53 of the judgment in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920).

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 defacto complainant. On receipt of copy of the bail application, the Public Prosecutor shall see that notice is served on the victim/defacto complainant before the bail application is heard.

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.