UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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