Kerala High Court
Pramod Kumar P.V vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Thursday, the 12th day of January 2023 / 22nd Pousha, 1944
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN BAIL APPL. NO. 982 OF 2022
CRIME NO: 50/2022 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:
XXXXXXXXXX
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS:
1. PRAMOD KUMAR P.V., AGED 38 YEARS, SON OF PRABHAKARAN NAIR, FLAT 5C,
PEARL MANOR, NEAR CPT VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695013THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, VATTIYOORKAVU-
MARUTHAMKUZHI ROAD OPPOSITE MOSQUE, VATTIYOORKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695013.
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High
Court be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent by
virtue of Annexure AI Order and he may be arrested and committed to
custody.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the application and
this court's Final order dated 15.06.2022 and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S. MATHEW DEVASSI, A.C.DEVASIA & ANCY MATHEW, Advocates for the
petitioner, M/S. J.VISHNU & ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, Advocates for R1 and
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for R2 & R3, the court passed the following:
Crl.M.A.No.1/22 in B.A.No.982/22
1
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
====================
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022
IN
B.A.No.982 of 2022
=====================
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
ORDER
On 15.06.2022, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the
applicant. While granting bail, it was noticed that the offence under
SC/ST Act was not incorporated initially and also that any allegations to
that extent was conspicuously absent in the F.I.Statement. It was also
noticed in the order that, subsequently at the direction of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Narcotic Cell, Thiruvananthapuram, offences
under SC/ST Act were incorporated. It is after taking note of the above
circumstances that, this Court granted anticipatory bail.
2. In the meantime, this application as Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022
has been filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the applicant, who
is arrayed as 1st respondent in this Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022.
3. The contentions raised in the application for cancellation is
that as per Section 18 and 18A of the SC/SST Act there is a bar for
invoking the powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore
this Court ought not to have granted bail. It was further contented
that in the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and
Others [2020 4 SCC 727], the Supreme Court had held that if prima
Crl.M.A.No.1/22 in B.A.No.982/22
facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out, then alone the court
has a power to grant anticipatory bail, despite the existence of Section
18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act. It was submitted that this Court had not
found that a prima facie case under SC/ST Act was not made out and
hence the bail ought to be cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that, once bail has been granted, the interim powers cannot
be resorted to cancel the bail and that the remedy of the petitioner in
this application for cancellation of the bail ought to be by preferring an
appeal. Reference was also invited to the decisions in
Smt. Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another [AIR 1981 SC 736]
and the decision in Sanjeev Kapoor v Chandana Kapoor [2020 (13)
SCC 172] and pointed out that after final order is passed in a criminal
case, the Court becomes functus officio except for the purpose of
correcting any mistake or omission. It was further pointed out that the
offences under the SC/ST Act was prima facie not attracted in the case
and therefore the grant of bail itself was justified.
5. The order dated 15.06.2022, granting bail to the 1 st
accused in Crime No.50/2022 of VattiyoorKav Police Station, was the
final order. If any person is aggrieved by the grant of bail, the remedy
is to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law by approaching
the higher Courts by recourse to Section 437 Cr.P.C. in the event of
any violation of condition. Instead of resorting to remedies available
under law, petitioner has filed this application under Section 437 r/w
Crl.M.A.No.1/22 in B.A.No.982/22
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Since, the criminal court becomes functus officio after
passing final orders, and the only remedy to interfere with a final order
is to the limited extent provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C, I am of the
view that this application is not maintainable.
7. Apart from the above, I find on a reading of the judgment
that this Court had specifically noticed that the offence under the
SC/ST Act was not incorporated initially and that the same was
conspicuously absent in the F.I.Statement too. This indicates that this
Court was prima facie satisfied that the offences under SC/ST Act were
not made out. The absence of allegations under the SC/ST Act at the
stage of giving the F.I.Statement weighed with this Court while
granting anticipatory bail. Of course, the words "prima facie case
under the SC/ST act is not made out" is not specifically mentioned in
the judgment. However, from the tenor of the judgment, it is evident
that this Court was satisfied that a prima facie case under the SC/ST
Act was not made out from the allegations and it was in the said
circumstance, that anticipatory bail was granted. Thus even on merits,
I do not find any reason to cancel the bail already granted to the
petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jka/12.01.23.
