Jayan vs State of Kerala

JAYAN vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 25, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1712974

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/1712974
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Feb 25, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./8855/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JAYAN

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....offences punishable under sections 341, 323 r/w section 34 of the ipc and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 (sc/st (poa) act.)3. the prosecution case, in brief, is that on12.12.2020 at around 7.30 p.m, when the de facto complainant was coming back after taking bath in the temple pond, the applicants not being members of the sc/st community, in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, a member of the sc/st community, on the panchayath road and thereafter he was abused by calling his caste name and the second accused allegedly hit him on his left cheek and assaulted him and thus committed the offence.4. the applicants state that the allegations are not true and that no offence under the sc/st(poa)act is attracted prima facie and therefore they seek pre-arrest bail.5. heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned public prosecutor. the de facto complainant did not appear despite notice.6. the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the de facto complainant was not assaulted and not due to the reason of being a member of the sc/st community or due to any racial prejudice. to attract an offence under the sc/st act, even calling a person by his caste name in the public place is prima facie an offence is made outunder the act. section 18a of the sc/st (poa) act creates an embargo in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. the de facto complainant is a member of the sc/st community and therefore anoffence is made out prima facie the de facto complainant is called by his caste name at a public place. hence, the application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. theapplicants are directed to surrender before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail. sd/- ashok menon judge spk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, CRIME NO.745/2020 OF Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONER/S: 1 JAYAN AGED 50 YEARS KOOTHUPARAMBU VEEDU, PALODE, MANNARKKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2 AJEESH AGED 30 YEARS KALLITHODI COLONY, PALODE, MANNARKKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031 2 CHANDRAN AGED 45 YEARS KANJIRATHIL VEEDU, P.O.PALODE, NATTUKAL, MANNARKKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 25th day of February 2021 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The applicants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.745/2020 of Nattukal Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act.)

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

12.12.2020 at around 7.30 p.m, when the de facto complainant was coming back after taking bath in the temple pond, the applicants not being members of the SC/ST community, in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant, a member of the SC/ST community, on the Panchayath road and thereafter he was abused by calling his caste name and the second accused allegedly hit him on his left cheek and assaulted him and thus committed the offence.

4. The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that no offence under the SC/ST(POA)Act is attracted prima facie and therefore they seek pre-arrest bail.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The de facto complainant did not appear despite notice.

6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the de facto complainant was not assaulted and not due to the reason of being a member of the SC/ST community or due to any racial prejudice. To attract an offence under the SC/ST Act, even calling a person by his caste name in the public place is prima facie an offence is made out

under the Act. Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act creates an embargo in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. The de facto complainant is a member of the SC/ST community and therefore an

offence   is   made    out   prima    facie the    de    facto
complainant    is   called     by   his   caste   name   at   a
public    place.      Hence,        the   application     for
anticipatory    bail     cannot      be   entertained.    The

applicants are directed to surrender before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties JAYAN vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon