Breaking: Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Upholds Special Court Order Cancelling Bail To 11 Accused

The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the appeals challenging a Special Court's order cancelling the bail granted to 11 accused persons in case of lynching of a tribal youth in February 2018. Justice Kauser Edappagath confirmed the order cancelling bail of 11 of the accused persons by the Mannarkkad Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bail granted to one of the accused was however upheld."All appeals dismissed except that of Accused number 11," said the court. Rejecting the contentions of the counsels for the appellants that the Court below had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by the High Court, the Court held, "It is not the law that if a serious violation of the bail conditions which sabotages the trial is noticed, the trial court is powerless, and it must refer the parties to the superior court which granted the bail for remedy. If any non-compliance with the bail conditions imposed by the superior court results in the trial being frustrated, it is for the trial court to take measures to correct it. The Court of Session cannot be a mute spectator of the flagrant violation of the conditions of bail imposed by the High Court subverting the judicial process".The accused persons in the instant case had been charged for tying up and brutally beating a tribal youth to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady in Kerala in February 2018. They were arrested on 24th February 2018, and remanded to judicial custody. Their bail applications before the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad was rejected on 3rd April 2018. This was subsequently challenged before the High Court by invoking Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter 'SC/ST (PoA) Act. The appeal was allowed on 30th May 2018, with an express condition that "the accused persons would not have any contact with the witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise till the whole trial process is over, and they shall not make any attempt to influence or threaten the witnesses in any manner". The trial of the case started on 28th April 2022, but during the course of the same, it was found that out of the 16 prosecution witnesses, 14 had turned hostile. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons had contacted the witnesses over phone and had won them over, thus violating the bail condition. Accordingly, the prosecution approached The Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad (hereinafter 'the Court below'), for cancellation of bail granted to the accused. The Court below, had on 20th August, 2022, cancelled the bail granted to 12 of the 16 accused in the lynching case of the tribal youth. The bail was cancelled on the ground that the accused had influenced the witnesses during the course of the trial and had contacted the witnesses, as a result of which majority of the witnesses to the case had turned hostile.Against the same, appeals were filed before the High Court by some of the accused persons. It was contended by Advocate S. Rajeev on behalf of the petitioner-accused that the Special Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and pass the impugned order since the bail had been granted by the High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Subsequently, the High Court had stayed the order of the Special Court cancelling the bail on 24th August 2022. On behalf of the various appellant accused in the various appeals that were filed, it was contended by the counsels, Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R., Nireesh Mathew, M. Revikrishnan, P.A. Reziya, and Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, that the Court below had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by the High Court invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, especially when the bail was granted by the High Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the SC/ST(PoA) Act. "The question of propriety is involved", it was argued during the oral hearings on 31st August 2022. It was further argued that even if it was discerned that the Court of Session was empowered to cancel the bail granted by the High Court to an accused consequent on his violating the bail conditions invoking the power under Section 439(2) of Cr. P.C, such power could not be extended to the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the SC/ST(PoA) Act. It was contended that since the Special Court is not a High Court or Court of Session, it couldn't exercise the power conferred on the High Court or the Court of Session under S.439(2) of Cr. P.C. Additionally, it was contended that the had never interfered with the trial. It was submitted that no complaints had been made by any of the witnesses against the appellants regarding threat or coercion from their part and that just because the appellants happened to have telephonic conversation with the witnesses, it couldn't be taken as a ...

Breaking: Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Upholds Special Court Order Cancelling Bail To 11 Accused

Navya Benny

However, the Court has upheld the bail granted to Accused number 11.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Navya Benny

Breaking: Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Upholds Special Court Order Cancelling Bail To 11 Accused

Navya Benny

However, the Court has upheld the bail granted to Accused number 11.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Navya Benny

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers