Naveen P.M. 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 challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 21.08.2024 in Crl.M.C.No.2305/2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) AC, 1989, Ernakulam.

The appellant is sole accused in Crime No.702/2024 of Njarakkal Police Station. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the SC/ST (POA) Act').

The prosecution case:-

The appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe. The victim is a member of Scheduled Caste. The victim, who is a 19 years old girl, got acquainted with the appellant while she was studying in a Technical Institute at Koonammavu. The appellant knew that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. On 11.11.2023, the appellant brought the victim to the residence of his friend Adharsh and indulged in sexual relationship with her after promising that he would marry her. She became pregnant and delivered a child. Though the fact that victim became pregnant in the sexual connection with the appellant was informed to him by her, he did not respond.

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

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual in nature and the prosecution failed to place any ingredients to attract the offences alleged.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application seeking bail on the ground that the offence alleged is heinous and further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is required. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the bail plea of the appellant is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The investigating officer submitted a report stating that granting anticipatory bail to the appellant will adversely affect the progress of investigation.

I have gone through the Case Diary and the submissions on both sides. The prosecution could establish the prima facie case to attract the offences alleged. Therefore, as far as the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is concerned, the bail plea of the appellant is hit by Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Coming to the offence under Section 376 of IPC, the prosecution has a specific case that the appellant indulged in sexual connection with the victim, after giving a promise of marriage. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the alleged consent, if any, to have sexual connection was obtained by way of deceit, and if the appellant had not given a promise of marriage, she would not have consented to sexual intercourse.

Having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The appellant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two days from this day. If the appellant is arrested and produced before the Jurisdictional Court, any application seeking regular bail that may be filed by him shall be considered and disposed of, as earlier as possible, at any rate, within three days from the date of filing of the application.

This Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as above.