Jayakumar vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

The 1st accused in Crime No. 1412 of 2022 of Varkala Police Station, is the appellant in this matter. He impugns Annexure-A2 order dated 07.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No. 2449 of 2022 on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act herein after referred as SC/ST (POA) Act, for convenience.

On notice, Adv. Neelanjana Nair appeared for the defacto complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

The prosecution case is that on 23.09.2022 at about 2.30 pm, the 1st accused caught hold of the defacto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, and brutally manhandled with intention to do away him. The further allegation is that the defacto complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste community whereas the accused are members of Ezhava community. On the above premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 308 and 506(ii) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire case is false. According to him the defacto complainant in this case is the accused in crime No. 369/2019 of Varkala Police Station where he alleged to have committed offences under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code as well as 5(1) read with 6 and 9(1) read with 10 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that since the defacto complainant is in enimical terms with the accused this case was poised so as to keep the relationship of the defacto complainant with the daughter of the accused alive with ulterior motives, which the family dislike.

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed grant of bail, by setting aside the order impugned, on the submission that the defacto complainant was brutally manhandled without any reasons and he sustained very serious injuries. According to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, since the allegations are serious and the defacto complainant apprehends further threat, bail cannot be granted.

The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the defacto complainant, while conceding that earlier Crime No. 369/2019 was registered against the defacto complainant as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Precisely, it is discernible that the defacto complainant is an accused in Crime No. 369/2019 of Varkala Police Station and the allegation there is that the defacto complainant committed rape and other offences against the daughter of the appellant herein. That apart, the appellant is in custody from 25.09.2022 and he has no criminal antecedents. It appears that his custody further is not required for the purpose of investigation.

In view of the matter, the appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Therefore, the impugned order herein stands set aside. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and 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 Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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 the 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 hereby granted.