Sunny vs Manoj

A. Badharudeen, J

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST (POA) Act, for convenience”) by the appellant, who is the accused in crime No.2596 of 2022 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 283, 294(b), 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(za) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, challenging dismissal of anticipatory bail filed by the appellant before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, vide order dated 09.11.2022 in Crl.M.C.No.2498/2022,

Adv.Balan P appeared for the defacto complainant when the defacto complainant was served with notice as mandated under Section 153A of the SC/ST (POA) Act

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

The prosecution case is that, on account of enmity with the defacto complainant that his family, who are the member of Scheduled Caste Community has been using a road which proceeds to their family, at about 10 p.m. on 23.10.2022, when the defacto complainant and his friend were traveling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-17/J 3882 through the said road, the appellant who is not a member of either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes obstructed them by putting an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-38/B 2395 owned by the petitioner across the road. When the defacto complainant questioned the said act, the appellant had humiliated the defacto complainant in the presence of the public by calling his caste name, that is within public view. On seeing this, the wife of the defacto complainant intervened and then the appellant also insulted her by calling her caste name in the presence of the public and thereby, committed the offences alleged against him.

In this matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case emanated when there is differences of opinion between the appellant and the defacto complainant in relation to a pathway. He submitted that now, the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant has no grievance at all.

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant, who is the first respondent also, would concede the said fact.

The learned Public Prosecutor also would submit that this is a matter involving pathway dispute, which led to an allegation of commission of the above offences. If the matter is settled, the prosecution will not stand against the said settlement.

Since the defacto complainant raised no objection and the dispute is pertaining to the pathway, I am of the view that this is a case in which anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

In the result, the order impugned stands set aside and the appeal stands allowed. The appellant is granted pre-arrest bail on the following conditions:

The appellant/accused shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the accused/appellant. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the accused/appellant before the Special Court on the date of surrender itself.

On such production, Special Court shall release the appellant/accused on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each, by himself and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge.

The appellant/accused shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer is directs so.

The appellant / accused, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

The appellant/accused shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.