ANIKUTTAN Vs. X

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has been arrayed as accused in the impugned Anx.B FIR in Crime No.61/2020 of Naruvamoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, for offences punishable under Secs.354, 354A(1)(i) & 323 of the IPC and Secs.3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (Amendment 2015) [for short "SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989"] on the basis of the FIS given by the 1st respondent lady defacto complainant on 12.2.2020, in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on 2.2.2020. The petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail has been rejected as per the impugned order dated 4.9.2020 rendered by the Addl. Sessions Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram, in Crl.M.C. No.608/2020 arising out of abovesaid Crime No.61/2020 of Naruvamoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail, the appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Sec.14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) Heard Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent (State). Though notice has been duly served on the 1st respondent (lady defacto complainant), there is no appearance for that party.

(3.) The main ground on which the plea of the appellant for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court is that, a prima facie case is made out in the above crime and therefore the plea for anticipatory bail cannot be considered in view of the statutory bar contained in Secs.18 & 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, as amended. It is this order of rejection of bail application that is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.