(1.) The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Investigation is in progress. According to the petitioners, the allegations raised against them are totally false and are made with a transparent intention of vexation. The petitioners cannot seek anticipatory bail in the light of the specific bar under Sec.18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Though going by the schedule to the Cr.P.C., the offences are triable by a Magistrate. The trial will have to be held before a Court of Session in the light of the stipulations in Sec.14 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners are willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate. But they apprehend that as the offences alleged include an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate may entertain an impression that he is not legally competent to grant bail and may detain the petitioners in custody. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that directions under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued to the learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail.
(2.) It is not the law that merely because the offence is triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate is legally not competent to consider the bail application. If there be any doubts on this aspect, I must assume that they have been set to rest by the repeated decisions of this Court in Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) K.L.T. 280); Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) K.L.T. 452); Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 42 and P.P. Kader v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) K.L.D. (Cri) 250).
(3.) Still, the petitioners apprehend that the learned Magistrate may not consider their bail application on merits and pray for directions.