Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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