Vipin 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 appellant is accused No.1 in Crime No.984/2024 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution case as discernible from the impugned order reads thus:

“The prosecution allegation is that at 9.30 p.m. on 02-08-2024, the petitioner along with three more co-accused, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant belonging to a scheduled caste at Kunnamparambu in Kannadi. They abused and insulted the defacto complainant by calling his caste name. The accused also paraded the defacto complainant in naked. They also intimidated the defacto complainant. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner and the other accused does not belong to any scheduled caste/tribe and they encountered the defacto complainant with their knowledge of his caste identity.”

Notice was served on the victim. He did not turn up.

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

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim filed this complaint at the instigation of one Krishnaprasad and one Chandrababu who maintain enmity towards him. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sri.Krishnaprasad and Sri.Chandrababu had once made an attempt to murder him and based on his complaint Crime No.931/2023 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad, was registered. It is submitted that the appellant has not committed any offences as alleged. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that those persons were booked under the KAAPA Act and they are habitual offenders.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea essentially on two grounds:-

(i) The prosecution could prima facie establish the offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

(ii) The appellant is involved in as many as nine crimes registered by various police stations in Palakkad district ranging from 2006 to 2024.

The Case Diary is made available. I have gone through the Case Diary, the FIR and other materials, which reveal that the prosecution could prima facie establish the offences under the Act. Therefore, the bail plea is barred under Section 18 of the Act. The offences under the BNS alleged against the appellant are bailable. The impugned order stands confirmed.

It is legally permissible for this Court to direct the accused to surrender before the Jurisdictional Court while rejecting a prayer for anticipatory bail {See: Nathu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (MANU/SC/0360/2021) : [2021 (3) KLT Online 1113 (SC)] and Rahul v. State of Kerala [ILR 2021 (4) Kerala 64)]}.

The appellant is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within one week from this date. On his surrender before the jurisdictional Court, if the appellant prefers an application seeking regular bail, the Court shall dispose of it on the same day itself in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51] and paragraph 53 of the judgment in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920).

The appellant is at liberty to serve a copy of the application seeking bail in advance to the Public Prosecutor and the counsel who appeared for the defacto complainant. On receipt of copy of the bail application, the Public Prosecutor shall see that notice is served on the victim/defacto complainant before the bail application is heard.

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.