High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-10-16Crl.A disposed of with directions for surrender...

PRAVEEN K.G. @ MANEESH v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:CRL.A NO. 1515 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-10-16
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.A disposed of directing that the appellant shall surrender before the investigating officer on 25.10.2023 at 9 a.m. and cooperate with the investigation; if the appellant applies for regular bail with due notice to the Public Prosecutor and the victim, the court shall consider and pass orders positively on the same date.
Final Disposition: Crl.A disposed of with directions for surrender and cooperation; regular bail, if sought, to be considered on the same date.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PRAVEEN K.G @ MANEESH

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOTTAYAM
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM
NEERAJ BHASKARAN S/O BHASKARAN VALIYAKALAYIL, PADUVA P.O. AKALAKKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM
NIROSH S/O BHASKARAN VALIYAKALAYIL, PADUVA P.O., AKALAKKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
• S.MANU
• BEA MARY BENNY
• JISMIN JOSE

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Seena C.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging a Sessions Court order denying pre-arrest bail (CrPC 438) in relation to Crime No. 901/2023 registered at Pallikathodu Police Station, Kottayam. The appellant, Praveen K.G. alias Maneesh, is alleged to have, on the night of 24 August 2023 near the residence of a neighbor (Mrs. Geetha), abused the 3rd respondent—who belongs to the Scheduled Caste—by uttering caste names and, when the 4th respondent intervened, continued to abuse him as well, with alleged injuries resulting in a wound certificate indicating abrasions. The FIR was registered on 28 August 2023. The District Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, noting serious allegations and a prima facie case to proceed with the investigation. The High Court, in appeal, noted the prima facie materials but observed the delay in lodgment and directed the appellant to surrender for investigation on 25 October 2023, with liberty to seek regular bail, to be considered on the same day. The court relied on Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra to hold that Section 18 Bar does not prevent considering anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence may not be made out, and emphasized cooperation with investigation and timely production before the court. The order ultimately directs expedited handling of any regular bail application and immediate cooperation in the investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.CSection 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Prima facie
Bar under Section 18 does not restrain this Court from considering anticipatory bail where prima facie offence is not made out.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel submitted that although the incident occurred around 10 p.m. on 24 August 2023 near the neighbour’s residence, the FIR records do not explicitly state public abuse; the wound certificate shows only abrasions, not linking to the alleged caste-based attack; the delay in filing the FIR (28 August 2023) raises questions about the credibility of the allegations and suggests a possible motive to settle scores after the appellant initiated complaints against the defacto complainant. Citing Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454, it was argued that the bar under Section 18 cannot bar consideration of anticipatory bail where there is no prima facie offence. The appellant sought anticipatory bail and urged that after cancellation or modification of the bail conditions or a grant of regular bail, he would cooperate with investigation, and that the wound evidence did not corroborate the FIR. The counsel pressed that the appellant is a neighbor with unlikely violent intent, and that coercive arrest should not be favored without a solid prima facie case.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail, contending that there is a strong prima facie case, evidenced by the recount of witnesses and the wound certificate; witnesses observed the incident, and the complainant sustained injuries, indicating a real and serious offence under the SC/ST Act. The address of the accused suggests no legitimate reason for him to be at the site; the delay in filing the FIR does not erase the material, and the bar under Section 18 is not a bar to deny bail under the circumstances. The court should consider the safety of the defacto complainant, the societal interest in preventing caste-based intimidation, and the need to protect investigative integrity and the ongoing proceedings. Any anticipatory bail would undermine the purpose of the Act and the thoroughness of the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra	(2018) 6 SCC 454	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not prevent a court from considering anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence is not made out.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against PRAVEEN K.G. @ MANEESH v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.A NO. 1515 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2023 IN CRMP 2420/2023 OF** **SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM** **CRIME NO.901/2023 OF PALLICKATHODU POLICE STATION** **APPELLANT:** **PRAVEEN K.G @ MANEESH AGED 31 YEARS** **S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KUPPAMALA, PADUVA, MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 564.** **BY ADVS.** **K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR S.MANU BEA MARY BENNY JISMIN JOSE** ## **RESPONDENT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001.** - **2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 507.** - **3 NEERAJ BHASKARAN S/O BHASKARAN VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE NELLIKKUNNU, PADUVA P.O. AKALAKKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER BHASKARAN., PIN – 686 564.** - **4 NIROSH S/O. BHASKARAN VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE NELLIKKUNNU, PADUVA P.O., AKALAKKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 564.** Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 2 : **BY ADV SMT.SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND** **R2** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 3 : ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2023 The appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime No.901/2023 of Pallikkathodu Police Station, Kottayam District, is the appellant in this Criminal Appeal. 2. It is alleged that the appellant with the intention to cause bodily injury and mental agony to the defacto complainant, on 24.08.2023 at 10.00 p.m., while the 3[rd] respondent was near the residences of his neighbor (Mrs.Geetha) for recharging his mobile phone, abused the 3[rd] respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community by calling his caste name and also manhandling. The 4[th] respondent, brother of the 3[rd] respondent, attempted to intervene. The appellant abused him also by calling his caste name. Crime No.901/2023 was registered in Pallikathodu Police Station on the basis of the afore facts. 3. The appellant moved the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, seeking Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 4 : pre-arrest bail. The learned Sessions Judge found that the material placed on record would _prima facie_ show that allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The defacto complainant has made strong allegations of having been attacked and inflicting injuries by the appellant. Defacto complainant and appellant are neighbors and there is a _prima facie_ strong case to proceed with the investigation. On these premises, the Sessions Court dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the appellant. 4. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 07.10.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.2420 of 2023 that the appellant has filed this Crl.A under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. The victim/ defacto complainant was informed of the pendency of the proceedings through the Public Prosecutor/SHO. There is no appearance for the victim/defacto complainant. 6. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the incident occurred on 24.04.2023 at 10.00 p.m, the Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 5 : complaint was lodged only on 28.04.2023. The allegations made against the appellant are incorrect. The complainant is intended to settle scores with the appellant as he initiated filing of a complaint against the defacto complainant. 7. The appellant further submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that the appellant abused the defacto complainant in public. The Honourable Apex Court has held in _**Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra** [(2018) 6 SCC 454]_ that the Bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not restrain this Court from considering an application for grant of Anticipatory Bail in case where prima facie offence is not made out. 8. The appellant further submitted that the wound certificate relied on by the Sessions Court shows that there are abrasions only on the body. The wounds indicated in the certificate do not match with the allegations made in the FIR. In the facts of the case, the appellant is entitled to Anticipatory Bail, contented the counsel for the appellant. Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 6 : 9. Public Prosecutor entered appearance and resisted the Criminal Appeal. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no reason for the appellant to be at the place of incidence on 24.08.2023 at 10.00 p.m. The defacto complainant had gone to the house of the neighbour in order to charge the mobile phone. All the witnesses who saw the incident, gave the same version. The wound certificate also evidence that the defacto complainant has sustained injuries. There is strong _prima facie_ case against the appellant. The bar in granting Anticipatory Bail as contemplated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would strongly apply to the facts of the case. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2. 11. The allegations against the appellant seem to be that on 24.08.2023 while the 3[rd] respondent was near the residence of his neighbour Mrs.Geetha for recharging mobile Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 7 : phone, the appellant abused the 3[rd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Caste name was called, it is alleged. When the 4[th] respondent who is brother of the 3[rd] respondent came to the site, the appellant abused him also by calling his caste name. 12. Public Prosecutor made available the case diary in respect of the case. Going through the case diary, I find that there are prima facie materials against the appellant. However, fact remains that though the incident happened on 24.08.2023, the FIR was lodged only on 28.08.2023. Taking into consideration the afore facts, I am of the view that the appellant should co-operate with the investigation proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Crl.A. is disposed of directing that the appellant shall surrender before the investigation officer on 25.10.2023 at 9 a.m. and co-operate with the investigation procedure. If the appellant surrenders before the investigating officer on 25.10.2023, the investigating officer should interrogate the Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 8 : appellant on the same day itself and shall produce the appellant before the court on the same day. If the appellant moves application for regular bail before the competent court with due notice to the Public Prosecutor and the victim, the court shall consider and pass orders positively on such bail application on the same date itself. **Sd/-** **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** AMR Crl.A No.1515 of 2023 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1515/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 901/2023 OF PALLIKATHODU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MP NO. 2420 OF 2023 DATED 07.10.2023 OF THE HON'BLE SESSION'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.**