AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J
Notice of this petition has been served on the complainant. Sri. S.Balakrishnan, has filed vakalath for the complainant and the same has been taken
on record.
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the High Court Government Pleader.
The petitioner is accused no.3 in Crime No.29/2020 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
323, 324, 327, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(i)(r) and Section 3(i)(s) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Actâ€).
One Naveen K.S., made a complaint to the police on 09.03.2020 stating that at about 10.45 a.m., on that day when he had been near the
Government Kunte (Pond) along with the villagers, the petitioner got down from the car, held his shirt collar and abused him taking the name of his
caste and asked the other petitioners to do away with his life.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 18(A) of the Act is not a bar for granting anticipatory bail in view of the clear
observations made by the Supreme Court in W.P.No.1015/2018 and W.P.(C).No.1016/2018. According to him there is no prima facie case against
the petitioner. The counter complaint has also been filed. He also submitted that from the complaint it self, it can be made out that the alleged incident
had not taken place in a public place and therefore it was not within public view. Therefore it is his submission that there is no impediment for granting
anticipatory bail.
The High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition by submitting that the complaint itself makes out prima facie case.
I have perused the petition. There is a clear allegation against the petitioner that it was he who took the name of the complainant and abused him. It
is very clearly stated in the complaint that the alleged incident took place in the presence of villagers; Public view does not mean that incident has to
take place at a public place; It must have been committed in the presence of many people in order that the complainant may feel insulted in the gaze
of public. The entire matter requires to be investigated. At this stage I do not find prima facie case. Therefore Section 18 is a clear bar. Petition is
dismissed.