RAJENDRA PRASAD P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 5.10.2019 on Crl.M.P.No.787/2019 rendered by the Special Sessions Court notified to deal with SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Manjeri, whereby the plea of the appellant/accused for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of his involvement in Crime No.762/2019 of Tirur Police Station has been rejected, the appellant has chosen to file the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended.

(2.) The appellant herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.762/2019 of Tirur Police Station, which has been registered for offences under Sections 448 , 323 , 354 , 294(b) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended. The said crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 25.9.2019 at about 8.40 p.m in respect of the alleged incident which happened on the same day (25.9.2019) at about 2 p.m in the afternoon. The prosecution case in short as made out in the F.I. Statement is that the lady de facto complainant, aged 45 years, is living in the immediate neighbourhood of the appellant/accused and that on 25.9.2019 at about 2 p.m., the lady de facto complainant, after pouring water in her mouth, had spit it outside and thereafter, the appellant had barged into her residence and yelled at her by using highly obscene and vulgar language and asked her as to how she has courage to spit at his face and called her by her caste name and slapped on her face and torn her maxi etc. Further, it is also alleged that even on previous occasion, the appellant used to spite her by calling out her caste name etc. It appears that the lady de facto complainant was immediately taken to the hospital on the same day etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that there are serious property disputes between the appellant/accused and the lady de facto complainant and it is only to spite and put pressure on the appellant that the lady de facto complainant has chosen to make the instant false allegations and that since this case has been instituted only for such mala fide and ulterior considerations, not even a prima facie case of substance disclosed in the offence as per SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 as amended has been made out in this case. Hence, it is contended that the statutory bar contained in Sections 18 and 18A of the above said Act will not apply in this case and so, this Court has the jurisdiction and competence to consider the plea for anticipatory bail on merits and that this Court may order to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellant, in the interest of justice etc. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court as in Jishnu v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KLT 432], wherein it has been held that where the accused can show that the case was instituted mainly for mala fide and ulterior considerations, then the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the above said Act will not apply and that the Court considering the plea for anticipatory bail could consider the said application on merits etc.