Kerala High Court
Roy Alexander vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2014
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/28TH ASWINA, 1936
Bail Appl..No.7120 of 2014
-------------------------------------
CRIME NO.1298/2014 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION,KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 3:
-------------------------------------------------
1. ROY ALEXANDER,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.ALEXANDER,
JANANI NAGAR - 43, MANGAD P.O,KOLLAM - 15.
2. ALEXANDER,AGED 57 YEARS,JANANI NAGAR - 43,
MANGAD P.O,KOLLAM - 15.
3. MOLY ALEXANDER,AGED 51 YEARS,W/O.ALEXANDER,
JANANI NAGAR - 43,MANGAD P.O,KOLLAM - 15.
BY ADV. SRI.S.S.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2. SEETHALEKSHMI,AGED 30 YEARS,W/O.ROY ALEXANDER,
THAZHAMUTTAM,GUARDS HOUSE,AMMAN NAGAR - 26,
PATTATHANAM - 21,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
pk
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
B.A.No.7120 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1298/2014 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District, initially registered for the offences punishable under Secs.109, 120B8, 313, 403, 498A read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. They apprehend arrest and accordingly they preferred this application seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.
2. Sri.S.S.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire allegations are wrong and he has made detailed averments in this regard in this petition. He has produced nine annexures in aid of his contentions in this regard.
3. The de facto complainant herein is the wife of the first petitioner and second and third petitioners are the father and mother of the 1st petitioner. One of the main submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the lady de facto complainant, who originally belonged to Hindu religion in the B.A.No.7490 of 2014 2 Scheduled Caste, had later converted to Christianity through Baptism and it is only thereafter she has married the petitioner in a Church as per the rites and ceremonies of the Christian religion etc. and that this is stated so by the de facto complainant and that so she does not belong to Scheduled Caste as she has voluntarily relinquished Hindu religion.
4. The petitioners further contend that the de facto complainant's version that the property in question was purchased by the petitioners only by using de facto complainant's money is absolutely false in as much as the property in question has been purchased by them much prior to the marriage as evidenced by Annexures A8 and A9 sale deeds which are respectively of the years 2007 and 2008. The petitioners would submit that as evidenced by Annexure A5 Baptism Certificate, the de facto complainant had taken her Baptism in the Christian Church on 21-7-2012 and Annexure A6 certificate would show that she had married the petitioner only thereafter on 25-8-2012. The petitioner would also submit that even in the first information statement given by the de facto complainant, it is clearly stated that she had undergone Baptism ceremony in the Christian B.A.No.7490 of 2014 3 Church. Therefore, it is urged by the petitioners that the de facto complainant does not belong to Scheduled Caste and so the offence under the SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be invoked against them.
5. The petitioners apprehend arrest in this case and therefore, they seek the relief of pre-arrest bail, and submit that all the petitioners are innocent of the above said allegations. The petitioners are falsely implicated and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the aged parents, it is averred.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that some more steps are required to be taken to ascertain as to the Baptism said to have been undergone by the de facto complainant and as to collect the exact details in that regard and if the investigation reveals that she has actually undergone Baptism prior to the commission of the alleged offences, then the Investigation Officer will have to get proper legal advice as to whether the alleged offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would lie and as to whether the de facto complainant can be said to have legally relinquished her status as Scheduled Caste etc. The B.A.No.7490 of 2014 4 Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that in view of such aspects, they do not intend to arrest the petitioners on account of the alleged involvement for the offences under the aforementioned Act of 1989. But, the Prosecutor also submit that the offences under Secs.109, 120B, 313, 403 of the Indian Penal Code had already been deleted from the aforementioned crime, after the investigation conducted so far, by giving necessary intimation to the Magistrate concerned and getting permission in that regard. The Prosecutor would submit that other offences now alleged against the petitioners in the aforementioned crime are those under Section 498A read with Sec.34 IPC and under Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Taking into account the other allegations involved in the alleged offences under Sec.498A read with Sec.34, this Court is convinced that the petitioners should have been granted anticipatory bail, but for the embargo placed by Sec.18 of the 1989 Act.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accordingly the petitioners would formally surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and the learned B.A.No.7490 of 2014 5 Magistrate may be directed to consider the bail application under Sec.437 (1) of the Cr.P.C on the same day itself and the Magistrate may be directed to grant bail, in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452)
8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners will surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and make necessary bail application and in that event the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the bail application forthwith on the same day itself, in the light of the dictum laid down in the aforementioned Shanu's case and in the light of the observations hereinabove.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge