Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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

Similar News