Aneesh, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1634155

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1634155
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jun 30, 2021
Case Number: CRL.A/305/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aneesh,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....thanapurakkal house, 2 george, aged 63 years s/o. thomas, residing at thanapurakkal house, perikkalloor p.o, pulpally village, sulthan bathery taluk, wayanad, pin - 673579. by advs. nirmal v nair sri.m.aneesh shri.ajai babu respondent/state and de facto complainant : 1 state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam - 682031. 2 rajeesh s/o. subrahmanyan, residing at koottalakkal house, this criminal appeal having come up for admission on 30.06.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentheard the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.2. as per the fir and the fis, there isno allegation for attracting any of the provisions contained in the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 and no crime was registered under any of the provisions of the said act at the initial stage. later, on the basis of an alleged statement given under section 161 cr.p.c. by the wife of the defacto complainant section 3(2) (va) and section 3(1)(r)(s) were incorporated. the first informant, who is the defacto complainant never raised any such allegation either at the time of fis or at the time of registration of fir. it is too difficult to understand why these provisions were incorporated based on the statement given by one of the witnesses to the incident undersection 161 cr.p.c. as such, the rejection of anticipatory bail by the learned sessions judge cannot be sustained. the bar under section 18 a will not stand attracted unless there is prima facie case attracting any of the offences under the provisions of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act. hence, the appeal is allowed in the following lines: 1) the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on or before 05/07/2021 and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 179/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA, WAYANAD APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: 1 ANEESH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING AT THANAPURAKKAL HOUSE, 2 GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT THANAPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERIKKALLOOR P.O, PULPALLY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD, PIN - 673579. BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR SRI.M.ANEESH SHRI.AJAI BABU RESPONDENT/STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. 2 RAJEESH S/O. SUBRAHMANYAN, RESIDING AT KOOTTALAKKAL HOUSE, THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. As per the FIR and the FIS, there is

no allegation for attracting any of the provisions contained in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and no crime was registered under any of the provisions of the said Act at the initial stage. Later, on the basis of an alleged statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the wife of the defacto complainant Section 3(2) (va) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) were incorporated. The first informant, who is the defacto complainant never raised any such allegation either at the time of FIS or at the time of registration of FIR. It is too difficult to understand why these provisions were incorporated based on the statement given by one of the witnesses to the incident under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. As such, the rejection of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. The bar under Section 18 A will not stand attracted unless there is prima facie case attracting any of the offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, the appeal is allowed in the following lines: 1) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on or before 05/07/2021 and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. 2) The petitioner shall not involve in such offences during the bail period. 3) The petitioner shall not

directly or indirectly induce any of the witnesses involved in the crime and shall not tamper with the evidence. 4) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required. 5) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission from the trial court. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE AMV/30/6/2021

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Aneesh, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan