IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 549 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Crl.MC 998/2022 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1-6:
1 RIJO GEORGE
AGED 22 YEARS,S/O GEORGE
EEYEKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU , NETTAYAM ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
2 SANDEEP B S
AGED 24 YEARS,S/O. SATHEESAN
SANDEEP BHAVAN,EYYAKUZHI,NETTAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
3 BIJUMON S
AGED 38 YEARS,KUMARI HOUSE,MG NAGAR,
KODUNGANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
4 RIJU GEORGE
AGED 25 YEARS,S/O GEORGE,34/2701,R.G. HOUSE,
MANALAYAM,KODUNGAOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695013
5 VIPIN RAJ
AGED 27 YEARS,S/O DOBINI, VIPIN BHAVAN,
PALAYAMKOTTUKUZHI, MANALAYAM,KODUNGAOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
6 REJIMON S U
AGED 37 YEARS,S/O SURENDRAN,
EBANAZER VILLA, THEKKEKARA, MANALAYAM,
KODUNGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
BY ADVS.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
G.RANJU MOHAN
ANJITHA T.R.
THARA JOHNSON
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
Crl.Appeal No.549 of 2022
2
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SOORYA SANTHOSH, AGED 18 YEARS,
S/O SANTHOSH KUMAR, CHARUVILA, MANALAYAM,
PEROORKADA, KACHANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695013
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI V S SREEJITH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.549 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022.
This appeal is filed challenging an order passed by Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the court below') in Crl.M.C.No.998/2022.
2. Crl.M.C.No.998/2022 is an application filed by the appellants who are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.381/2022 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station seeking for pre-arrest bail. The application was dismissed by the court below in view of the bar incorporated under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') against exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). In the case on hand, the offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the court below has gone wrong in dismissing the application filed by them under Section 438 Crl.Appeal No.549 of 2022 4 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel several crimes were pending against the defacto complainant registered at the instance of the residence association of the locality wherein the defacto complainant is residing. According to her, the defacto complainant is an anti-social and the crime in question was registered as a counterblast against the offences already registered against her at the instance of the residential association.
4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel would not help the appellants to obtain pre-arrest bail. Since notified offences under IPC are involved indisputably an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act would be attracted. The allegations in the FIS are sufficient to attract the commission of the offences. The court below has dismissed the application, on being convinced of that. Interference is unwarranted.
Crl.Appeal fails for the reason and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE NAB