JEMSHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the accused in Crime No.96 of 2021 registered at the Manjeri Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The crime has been registered at the instance of the 3rd respondent, who alleges that, at about 12.40 p.m on 4.3.2021, the accused caught hold of her right hand and caused injuries by scratching on the hand, pushed her on the chest, caught hold of her churidar and thereby outraged her modesty. Further, the accused abused her in public by calling out her caste name, knowing fully well that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The accused was arrested on 6.3.2021 and is continuing in custody. The application for bail filed before the Special Court stands rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the accused has been in custody for more than 32 days and there is no justification in denying bail to him. It is argued that the 3rd respondent had levelled false allegations against the appellant at the instance of her employer. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent's employer, who is the actual aggressor, had beaten up the appellant by about 1 p.m on 4.3.2021. That, having sustained injuries in the attack, the appellant had gone to the nearby hospital for treatment and had thereafter gone to the police station to lodge a complaint. Since the Police refused to register the FIR, he approached the superior Police Officer and was directed to go back to the police station and was arrested when he went to the Police Station on the second occasion. As regards the findings in the impugned order that the appellant is involved in various crimes and even proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C was initiated against him, learned counsel submitted that in all the cases mentioned in the impugned order, the appellant had been acquitted. That, despite false information having been submitted by the local Police, the Sub Divisional Magistrate refused to initiate action under Section 107. The reason for non-registration of FIR on the appellant's complaint is stated to be the personal animosity of the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspectors of Police towards him, for having filed a civil suit against them. Finally, it is contended that, even if the allegations are accepted for the sake of argument, there is no reason to deny bail after 32 days of custody.

(3.) Smt.Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is a history-sheeter involved in various other crimes and the action of the appellant of catching hold of the 3rd respondent in public, outraging her modesty and abusing her by calling caste name are grievous offences. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Special Court having passed a well reasoned order, no interference is warranted in appeal.