Aneesh vs State Of Kerala

P. Somarajan, J

Heard the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

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.