High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil vs State of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 December 2014 · Citation: (2014) 12 KL CK 0094

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Kemal Pasha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120(b), 34, 406, 420 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(V)
CASE NUMBER
Crl. M.C. No. 1705 of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 449 words

B. Kemal Pasha, J.—Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Crime No. 331 of 2014 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station registered for he offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''the Act''). According to the petitioners, a false complaint has been filed after 7 years of the execution of a sale deed in respect of the property, by alleging that the said document was executed by thinking that it was only a mortgage deed.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

It seems that apart from the aforesaid allegations, some other allegations are also levelled against the petitioners, which if proved, may constitute an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(V) of the Act. It is too early to hold that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are falsely implicated. At the same time, the false implication of the petitioners in an offence under Section 3(1)(V) of the Act, cannot also be ruled out. It depends on evidence, and further proceedings. Matters being so, it is too early to hold that the case against the petitioners can be quashed.

4.

It is a fact that the provisions of anticipatory bail are not applicable, as far as the offences under the Act, is concerned.

5.

In view of the decisions in Ali v. State of Kerala [2000 (2) KLT 280] and Shanu v. State of Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 452], the Judicial First Class Magistrates, who are dealing with the matters, are not powerless to grant bail in cases of the offences under the Act, even though the offences are to be tried by the special court which is the Principal Sessions Court. While dealing with the matter, the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Courts shall bear in mind the fact that they have powers to grant bail in such cases, wherein bail has to be granted.

In the result, this Crl. M.C. stands dismissed. At the same time, the court below is directed to dispose of the application seeking bail, if any, filed by the petitioners on their surrender before the court below on the same day itself, provided advance notice of such bail application is served on the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. While disposing of the application, the court below shall bear in mind the fact that the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s Courts have got ample power to grant bail in offences under the said Act, in cases wherein bail has to be granted in the interest of justice.