Syam vs State Of Kerala

N.Nagaresh, J

The appellant is before this Court in an appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.Nos.210 of 2023 and 212 of 2023 of the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kottarakkara.

Public Prosecutor states that information as regards this appeal has been given to the victim as required under Section 15 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Crl.M.P.No.210 of 2023 was filed by the 3rd accused and Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2023 was filed by the 2nd accused (appellant herein) and the 4th accused in Crime No.1566 of 2023 of Eravipuram Police Station.

The prosecution allegation is that the accused attacked the son of the informant and the 1st petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2023, beat on the left hand of the brother of informant and caused fracture on the left hand of the brother of the informant. The weapon allegedly used by the 2nd accused (appellant herein) for the offence was recovered from the locality. Accused Nos.2 to 4 filed applications for anticipatory bail invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Special Judge.

After considering the facts of the case, the Special Court allowed Crl.M.P.No.210 of 2023 filed by the 3rd accused. As far as Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2023, in which the appellant was the 1st petitioner, the Special Judge granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner. Anticipatory bail application was rejected in so far as the appellant herein concerned, on the ground that the weapon allegedly used by the appellant was recovered and that the injury is grave. The order in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2023 of the Special Court is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.

The appellant would submit that the incident happened not as alleged by the prosecution. The victim and accused were local residents. The incident occurred in connection with a temple festival. The Special Judge ought to have found that there is no document produced by the prosecution to establish that there is a fracture caused by the appellant on the alleged date. The court below ought to have appreciated the fact that there is no dangerous weapon used by the accused and hence offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out.

Public Prosecutor entered appearance and resisted the Criminal Appeal. The Public Prosecutor pointed out that the weapon used by the appellant was recovered. The Wound Certificate issued would evidence fracture on the victim. The victim belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. The materials available on record would amply show the involvement of the appellant in the crime. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

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

It is evident from the materials made available before this Court that the 1st accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the Special Judge as per order dated 27.09.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2023. The order dated 16.09.2023 wherein anticipatory bail was granted to accused 3 and 4, is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal. Anticipatory bail was denied to the appellant herein, who is the 2nd accused, mainly on the ground that the appellant used a weapon and the said weapon was recovered from the locality.

The incident occurred in connection with a temple festival. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the appellant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation proceedings.

In the circumstances, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of directing that the appellant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week and the Investigating Officer shall carry out the interrogation and produce the appellant before the Special Court on the same day itself. In the meanwhile, if the appellant moves bail application with prior notice to the victim, the court below shall consider the bail application and strive to pass orders on the same day itself.6. In  the  light  of Sec.394  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure and the law declared in Pazhani (supra), I hold that that the revision petition has abated.

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as abated.