Rijo George vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9125 Ker

        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

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