Husband Of Viral Kumbh Mela Star Booked Under SC/ST Act: MP Police Informs Kerala High Court While Opposing Couple's Anticipatory Bail Plea

Madhya Pradesh police told the Kerala High Court on Friday (May 29) that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been incorporated against the husband of viral Kumb Mela star and hence the anticipatory bail moved by the couple was not maintainable. The submission was made by ASG SV Raju appearing for MP police, before Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, who was hearing the couple's plea seeking pre-arrest bail in the crime lodged after the star's father filed a complaint before MP police alleging abduction of his daughter. The couple had filed an amendment petition seeking to amend the pleadings in the bail application and the same was also heard by the Court.The ASG pointed out: "The offence falls under the Atrocities Act. S. 3(2)(v) is invoked. Because of S.18 of the SC/ST Act, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Victim belongs to the Schedule Tribe. The 1st petitioner is not belonging to SC/ST community."As per Section 3(2)(v), a person committing any IPC offence, punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. Section 18 provides that Section 438 CrPC (Anticipatory bail) shall not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of an offence under the Act. After hearing the parties, the Court remarked that it would extend the interim order granting protection to the couple till Tuesday (June 2) and that it would hear further arguments of the parties in case it decides to allow the amendment application.During the hearing today, the ASG SV Raju representing MP government submitted that there are objections against the amendment petition filed by the couple. He said that after his submissions last week, the petitioners were supposed to file a reply but they had filed an amendment application, which included averments that addressed the lacunae pointed out by him.Justice Kauser said: "Already there was sufficient pleadings but exact wording was not there."Last week, the Madhya Pradesh government had challenged the maintainability of the plea on the ground that regular anticipatory bail pleas can only be preferred before the courts in the same State where crime was registered. According to them, since in the present case, the couple had sought regular anticipatory bail in Kerala in relation to a crime registered in MP, the same was not maintainable. Meanwhile Advocate Sasindran appearing for the couple submitted today that the bail application was moved in Kerala apprehending many dangers faced by the couple, who belonged to different religions. He referred to Supreme Court's decision in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) and said that the settled position is that amendment can be filed even just before judgment. He said that the power under S. 528 BNSS dealing with inherent powers of the High Court is meant to ensure substantial justice.He said, "The very reason for filing the bail application is that I cannot go to Madhya Pradesh. Today, I have produced photographs. Our marriage photographs are burning and beating with shoes by the fundamentalists. That is the reason why I have filed the bail application. I cannot go to Madhya Pradesh. Even I cannot move in Kerala also. Even after getting your Lordships order, realising that the order is only against arrest, they registered a case under Child Marriage Act. As if I, the 2nd petitioner, is a victim. The fact is that there is a threat. We cannot move to MP. We have not gone to MP. We filed the writ petition in MP by approaching a lawyer from Kerala only, not in MP". Opposing the amendment, the ASG submitted, "These are not subsequent events. These are events, which are known to him prior to the filing of the bail application. These are not fact which has arisen after the filing of the bail application. It's a fact, which was known to him. He has not stated that in his petition. It amounts to suppression. Amendment should not be allowed. After I made my submissions (on) what is required and I pointed out that necessary averments are not there, he has filed the amendment, instead of replying, to overcome the lacunae. To fill in the lacunae, amendment can't be allowed....He has stated wrong facts. He has stated that he can't go to Madhya Pradesh...It is an admitted fact that he has filed a writ petition in MP High Court after his bail application was filed...There is no requirement to go to MP physically to file a pre-arrest bail application. He can swear and send it there. Therefore, his saying that I am not safe in MP is of no consequence here." Advocate Sasindran then clarified that in the writ petition before Madhya Pradesh High Court the affidavit was sworn in Kerala only. The ASG also submitted that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been incorporated against the husband, who does not belong to the SC/ST...

Husband Of Viral Kumbh Mela Star Booked Under SC/ST Act: MP Police Informs Kerala High Court While Opposing Couple's Anticipatory Bail Plea

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Husband Of Viral Kumbh Mela Star Booked Under SC/ST Act: MP Police Informs Kerala High Court While Opposing Couple's Anticipatory Bail Plea

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers