Kerala High Court
Jomy Jose vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2024
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 794 OF 2024
CRIME NO.384/2024 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 IN CRMC NO.1347 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 JOMY JOSE
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O JOSE, PARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR P.O
AIRAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686669.
2 JOBY JOSE
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O JOSE, PARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR P.O
AIRAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686669.
BY ADVS.
K.R.PRATHISH
S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031.
2 SMIJA K MOHAN
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O RAJESWARAN, NIKATHITHARA, MAZHUVANNOOR, IRAPURAM,
ERANKULAM, PIN - 686669.
BY ADV T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
SRI.T.U SUJITH KUMAR, FOR R2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 794 OF 2024 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short 'the Act'). The challenge in the appeal is to the order
dated 9.5.2024 in Crl.M.C.No.1347 of 2024 passed by the Sessions
Court, Ernakulam.
2. The appellants are the accused in Crime No.384/2024 of
Kunnathunadu Police Station. The appellants are alleged to have
committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 509 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) , 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v)(a) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Prosecution case:-
The de facto complainant and the accused are neighbours.
The de facto complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste
community. The appellants are not members of the Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. On 14.4.2024 at 9.30 p.m.,
while the de facto complainant and the other members of her
family were celebrating vishu by bursting firecrackers, the
appellants came in front of their residence. A quarrel occured.
The appellants showered abusive words towards the de facto
complainant and her husband. They intentionally insulted the de
facto complainant and her husband within public view with intent
to humiliate them for the reason that they belong to Schedule
Caste. The appellants also used words and gestures of sexual
nature towards the de facto complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the prosecution failed to produce the materials to prima facie
establish the ingredients of the offences under the Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant submitted that the statement given by the de facto
complainant prima facie reveals the offences under the Act.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea on
the ground that it is hit by Section 18 of the Act.
7. I have gone through the FIS given by the victim. The
statement prima facie reveals the offences under the Act.
Therefore the bail plea of the appellants is barred under Section
18 of the Act. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge stands
confirmed.
8. 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)].
9. I find no material warranting the custodial interrogation
of the appellants. There is no chance for them to abscond.
10. The appellants are directed to surrender before the
jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from this date. On
their surrender before the jurisdictional Court, if the appellants
prefer application seeking regular bail, the Court shall dispose of
the application on the same day itself in the light of the principles
declared by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51].
The appellants are at liberty to serve a copy of the
application seeking bail in advance to the Public Prosecutor and
the counsel who appeared for the de facto complainant. On receipt
of the advance copy of the bail application, the Public Prosecutor
shall see that notice is served on the victim/de facto complainant
before the bail application is heard.
Sd/-
K.BABU
JUDGE
Sru
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024
IN CRIMINAL M.C. NO.1347/2024 BEFORE THE
SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM.
