Biju v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Bail Appl.No. 1006 of 2015 ----------------------------------- CRIME NO. 988/2014 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA .........
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------
1. BIJU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAJAPPAN, BAIJU BHAVANAM, AREEKARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2. REMANI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.RAJAPPAN, BAIJU BHAVANAM, AREEKARA, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT6 - 688 501.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: msv/
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No.1006 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March 2015
ORDER
Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2.
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.988/2014 of Chenganoor Police Station, Alappuzha district registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.
The allegation against the petitioners is that on a promise of marriage, the first petitioner used to subject the de facto complainant woman, who is the member of a Scheduled caste, for sexual intercourse, on several occasions and subsequently, he backed out from his promise and married another lady. It is further
B.A.1006/2015 alleged that the second petitioner, who is the mother of the first petitioner, severely abused the de facto complainant and called her caste name in public, thereby humiliating and dishonouring her. The petitioners belong to Ezhava community, which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor Scheduled Tribe.
4.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.
When the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been alleged, there is clear bar under Section 18 of the said Act, in applying the provisions under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter. Matters being so, this bail application is not maintainable and hence, this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge