Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Case: Prima Facie Case Not Made Out

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a case filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The court's decision was based on the observation that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case under the Act.

The case in question, registered as Crime No. 983/2023 of Neyyar Dam Police Station, stemmed from an incident during a public protest. Allegations were made against the accused, who were involved in the protest, of abusing the caste name of the Panchayat President, who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, and manhandling individuals during the protest.

In delivering the judgment, the Honorable Mr. Justice P.G. Ajithkumar emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be established under the SC/ST Act for the bar created by Section 18 to apply. He cited a previous Supreme Court decision, stating, "If a prima facie case has not been made out attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the bar created by Section 18 to the grant of anticipatory bail is not attracted."

The court further noted that the allegations primarily revolved around a public agitation regarding the relocation of a public school, and other than the altercation during the protest, there was no evidence of manhandling or assault. The accused argued that a false case had been lodged against them for political reasons.

Regarding the charges under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the court found that the injuries reported in the case did not indicate serious harm. The judge stated, "From the materials available on record, it is evident that the alleged assault and hurling of humiliating words occurred during the course of the picketing. When the aforementioned words were said to have been uttered by the assailants in the above context, the same are in the nature of a statement in protest. It cannot, prima facie, be said that the said words amounted to an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act."

Kerala High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Special Court, granting anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to certain conditions. These conditions include not influencing or intimidating witnesses, cooperating with the investigating officer, and refraining from further offenses during the bail period.

 

 Date of Decision: December 21, 2023

BIJU CHANDRAN VS STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News