Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.K.Abdulla Hajee vs The State Of Kerala on 20 September, 2012

Author: P.Bhavadasan

Bench: P.Bhavadasan

       

  

  

 
 
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                  PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

       THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/29TH BHADRA 1934

                                     Bail Appl..No. 6605 of 2012 ()
                                           ------------------------------
     CRIME NO.454/2012 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
                                         ---------------------------------

    PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
    -------------------------------------------

    1. K.K.ABDULLA HAJEE, AGED 70 YEARS,
        S/O.LATE AHAMMED HAJEE,RESIDING AT UDMA PADIJAR,
        KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

    2. ABDUL RAHIMAN.P.A,AGED 52 YEARS,
        S/O.ABDULLA,RESIDING AT UDMA PADIJAR,
        KASARAGODDISTRICT.

       BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

    RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
    ----------------------------------------------------------

       THE STATE OF KERALA,
       REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

       BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
     ON 20-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
     FOLLOWING:



sts



                     P. BHAVADASAN, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   B.A. No. 6605 of 2012
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        Dated this the 20th day of September, 2012.

                                ORDER

Petitioners stand accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that even going by the averments contained in the complaint, no offence is made out. Petitioners are unnecessarily implicated only for the purpose of humiliation and harassment. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second petitioner undertakes to provide one meter width pathway for the defacto complainant for ingress and egress.

3. In view of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioners. Therefore, this application is dismissed. B.A.6605/2012. 2

However, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 27.9.2012, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law on the same day itself in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions reported in Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000(3) K.L.T. 452), Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (2005 KHC 2058) and in Prem Shameer v. State of Kerala (2010(4) K.L.T. 620) and after taking note of the concession made by the second petitioner and also the fact that by such grant of pathway the grievance of the defacto complainant is redressed.

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.