SHRADESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is originated from an order passed by Principal Court of Sessions, Ernakulam on 25/9/2020 in Crl.M.C No.1782 of 2020 in Crime No.509/2020 of Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam. The appellant is the accused in the above crime registered for offences punishable under Ss. 354 A(1)(ii) and 354 D(1)(i) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST(POA) Act').

(2.) Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2020 was filed by the appellant before the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam seeking for pre-arrest bail under Sec. 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Court of Sessions, Ernakulam found that prima facie case is not made out against the appellant with respect to the offence under Sec. 3(1)(s) incorporated in the crime registered against them but ingredients are there in the allegations described in the FIS of the defacto complainant to attract commission of non-bailable offence under Sec. 3(1)(w) (i) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Accordingly, Crl.M.C was dismissed by the court below.

(3.) Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is the Commander Works Engineer (CWE) in Military Engineer Services at Naval Base, Kochi and the defacto complainant is a Barrack Store Officer (BSO), working under him. According to him, the court below is highly unjustified in declining to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellant. The learned counsel has invited the Court's attention to copies of some documents produced alongwith the appeal on hand which includes a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Internal Complaint Committee constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It is contended on the basis of the said complaint and events followed, evidenced from other materials accompanying the appeal on hand that the allegation of the complainant were found baseless by the Committee. According to the learned counsel, on a scrutiny and comparison of the copy of the aforesaid complaint with the complaint lodged by the complainant to prosecute the appellant in the case on hand, it is found that the necessary ingredients to attract the offences under SC/ST(POA) Act were added subsequently. According to him, the exaggerated version of the incident in the complaint on hand is only the outcome of an after thought of the defacto complainant, with a view to make the offences proposed attracted. According to the learned counsel the date of the incident alleged by the complainant in the complaint filed before the Committee as well as that filed before the Court are one and the same but the actual facts have been modified in a manner to appear as if all the offences are attracted. It is further contended by the learned counsel that by modifying the allegations in the complaint lodged before the Court, the complainant has become instrumental for foisting a new case which was not known to her prior. According to the learned counsel, the falsity in the complaint lodged before the Court can very well be identified and brought to light on comparing the allegations in the complaint filed before the Committee and the one on hand. According to the learned counsel after closure of the proceedings before the Committee in her disfavour that the complaint on hand was preferred by the complainant with a view to launch the prosecution that incorporates offences under the IPC and also under the SC/ST(POA) Act. The malafide intention of the complainant to harass the appellant is very much evident from the documents produced alongwith the appeal on hand. According to the learned counsel, the court below is highly unjustified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C and declining to grant pre-arrest bail to him by the impugned order.