Vijayakumar @ Ani vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience). The appellant herein is the sole accused in Crime No.107 of 2022 of Kareelakulangara Police Station. The respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the defacto complainant.

Though notice was served to the defacto complainant through the Investigating Officer, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the 'Act' has been served upon the defacto complainant, he did not turn up for hearing.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

In this matter, order dated 23.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3052 of 2022 on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha is put under challenge. Precisely, as per the order impugned, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant herein where, he alleged to have committed offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 506(i) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the 'Act'.

The prosecution allegation as could be read out from the case diary materials placed by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the accused herein who does not belong to SC/ST community assaulted the defacto complainant at 7.45 p.m. on 19.03.2022 and caused fracture to his head using a torch. Apart from that, the accused called the caste name of the defacto complainant and thereby, he was insulted and abused within public view. It is noticed that the defacto complainant appeared before the Sessions Court and authorised the learned Public Prosecutor to submit his version, while opposing bail.

In this matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and the entire allegations are false. He submitted further that the allegations would not constitute commission of offences under the 'Act' and further, he submitted that the defacto complainant and his people chased and manhandled the appellant for some days and as a follow up action, the defacto complainant had criminally trespassed upon the house of the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant has been in custody from 01.08.2022 onwards and he has no criminal antecedents. According to the learned counsel, the appellant/accused is ready to abide by any conditions as pre-requisite for granting bail.

Controverting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed interference in the order impugned on the ground that very serious offences alleged to be committed by the appellant under the 'Act' as well as under Section 326 of IPC. He has placed First Information Statement along with the copy of the wound certificate to show the serious head injury sustained to the defacto complainant.

On perusal of copy of wound certificate, it was found on CT Scan examination that the defacto complainant sustained comminuted fracture, lateral wall of left orbit. Apart from swelling on left side of face and lacerated injury on the inner side of left cheek 3x2 cms. Thus, the case diary materials would substantiate the prosecution case prima facie and the contentions raised by the accused in the reverse cannot be countenanced.

In this case, admittedly, the accused has been in custody from 01.08.2022. The materials available before this Court would go to show that the investigation has achieved much progress and the further custody of the appellant, who has no criminal antecedents, is not required for the purpose of investigation.

In view of the matter, I am inclined to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and to grant bail to the appellant/accused on conditions;

i. The appellant/accused shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

ii. The appellant/accused shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial.

iii. The appellant/accused shall not cause any hindrance to the defacto complainant and also not disturb him in any manner.

iv. The appellant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court/jurisdictional court.

v. The appellant/accused shall surrender his passport, if any, within 7 days from the date of his release, before the jurisdictional court. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit in this regard on the date of execution of the bond or within three days thereafter.

vi. The appellant/accused shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.