Kerala High Court
Anoop vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2024
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1554 OF 2024
CRIME NO.390/2024 OF Kadakkavoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2024 IN CRMP NO.387 OF
2024 OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER
SC/ST(POA)ACT1989, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT/2nd ACCUSED:
ANOOP
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.ASHOKAN, MADHAVAM, MAVINMOOD,
KALLAMBALAM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695146
BY ADV
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695306
3 PRAVEEN,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.PREMLAL, KRISHNAKRIPA,
KARAVARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695605
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
2
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
3
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.1554 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2024
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The appellant is the accused No.2 in Crime
No.390/2024 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. The appellant
and the other accused are alleged to have committed
offences punishable under Sections 506, 324, 307 and 34
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The prosecution case as discernible from the
impugned order reads thus:
"The defacto complainant, A1 and two others are
co-accused in a criminal case pending before the
Magistrate Court, Varkala. On 06.06.2024, they
appeared before the said court and thereafter,
they consumed liquor and quarreled each other
at Alamcode on disputing that the defacto
complainant is responsible for the case pending
before the Magistrate Court, Varkala. It is alleged
that on the same day at 6.30 p.m., while the
defacto complainant was standing near
Nilakkamukku Junction A1, A2 and two
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
identifiable persons arrived near to the defacto
complainant and A1 hit on the head of the
defacto complainant with a concrete stone. It is
further alleged that A2 and other persons also
alarmed to kill him and attacked him with a
granite stone, thereby a tooth of the upper jaw of
the defacto complainant became broken and
sustained bleeding injury on his head and
wounds were treated by 19 suturings on his
head. It is further alleged that accused
committed the offences on knowing that defacto
complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste
Parava community. On the basis of information
furnished by the defacto complainant, this crime
has been originally registered for the offences
punishable u/ss. 506, 324, 307 and 34 IPC and
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. Later,
investigating officer added S.326 IPC also."
4. Notice was served on the victim. He did not turn
up.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant is innocent of the allegations levelled
against him. It is further submitted that accused No.1 was
granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court. The learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the bar under
Section 18 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the
case.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
plea of the appellant.
8. The learned Special Judge considered the
applications seeking anticiaptory bail by the appellant and
accused No.1 and found that as there are no overt acts
against accused No.1, he is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The
learned Special Judge further found that the appellant who
voluntarily caused hurt to the victim and committed the
said act knowing that the victim belongs to Scheduled
Caste, is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
9. The Case Diary is made available. I have gone
through the case diary. The appellant is not a member of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the victim is a
member of Scheduled Caste. The prosecution specifically
stated that the appellant committed grievous hurt to the
victim knowing that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste.
Therefore, the bar under Section 18 is applicable.
10. The out patient ticket dated 06.06.2024 issued in
favour of the victim shows that he sustained the following
injuries:
"Multiple Lacerated wounds on head. Lacerated wound
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
3cm X 1cm X 1cm in size at right occipital region of the
head. Lacerated wound of 2cm X 1cm X 1cm in size at left
occipital region of the head. Lacerated wound of 1.5 cm X
1cm X 1cm size at left parietal region of the head. Require
19 stitches to the head (6 inside and 13 outside)."
11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
weapon allegedly used is a stone which is yet to be
recovered.
12. Having regard to the nature of the overt acts
alleged against the appellant, this Court feels that he is not
entitled to anticipatory bail. Therefore, the impugned order
stands confirmed.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant is prepared to surrender before the
Jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail. It is further
submitted that the appellant, other accused and the victim
are friends, and accused in another case. It is also
submitted that the alleged incident occurred in a sudden
provocation and that the appellant had not intentionally
committed any offences as alleged.
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
14. 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)]}.
15. The appellant is directed to surrender before the
jurisdictional Court within two weeks 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).
16. 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
Crl.A.No.1554 of 2024 2024:KER:72471
Prosecutor shall see that notice is served on the
victim/defacto complainant before the bail application is
heard.
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU
JUDGE
VPK
