Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea of Accused Who Threatened Victim's Mother

The Kerala High Court on Friday declined to grant anticipatory bail to a person, who is also an accused in the Madhu lynching case, in an FIR alleging he trespassed into the house of victim's mother and threatened to murder her for "proceeding with" the trial pertaining to her son's death. Upholding the order passed by the special court, Justice A. Badharudeen said Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act would apply to the case and therefore anticipatory bail cannot be granted.The court also noted the Investigation Officer's submission that the arrest and custodial interrogation of the accused Abbas R.V were necessary to ensure successful prosecution. The court was also informed that the accused had threatened all the witnesses of the Madhur murder case and a result 13 of the 17 witnesses turned hostile.Madhu, a tribal youth, was killed in February 2018 after being accused of stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Kerala. Abbas along with a co-accused on July 8 had criminally trespassed into the house of the victim's mother - who is the complainant in the murder case, and threatened her with dire consequences if she did not abstain from proceeding with the trial of the lynching case of her son before the Sessions Court, Mannarkkad, as per the police case. The accused threatened to murder her so as to disturb the trial, the police alleges.The Special Case had earlier denied anticipatory bail to the accused in the case of house trespass and criminal intimidation, saying that there was a bar on granting anticipatory bail in the case as provisions of SC/ST Act have also been invoked by the police. The matter then reached High Court.On behalf of the accused, it was contended by Advocate Balamurali K.P. that the entire allegations against him are false, and since no prima facie case had been made out, he deserves be granted the pre-arrest bail. On the other hand it was contended by Advocate P.V. Jeevesh - who represented the victim's mother, and Senior Public Prosecutor T.R. Ranjith, that the grant of anticipatory bail in the instant case was specifically barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court in the instant case, had the following questions before it to for consideration:Whether grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred in cases involving commission of offences under the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?Is relaxation to Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act is permissible? If so, to what extent?How the word `knowing' in Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act to be understood?The Court in this case perused Section 18, and found that it stipulates that Section 438 CrPC, which provides for anticipatory bail, would not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person or accusation of an offence committed under the SC/ST Act. The case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) wherein the Apex Court had held that, "the scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail" was also taken note of by the Court. The Court further noted that after the decision in Dr. Subhash Kashi Nath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra (2018), whereafter the Act had been amended, Section 18(2) provides that, "the provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any court". However, the Court was quick to note the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), where the Apex Court has clarified that, "in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail".In the case connected to Madhu murder FIR, the Court noted that the prosecution alleged the commission of offences under Sections 452, 506(ii) and 195A of I.P.C, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. As per the said provision, it is necessary that in order to attract the offence, it ought to be committed by the accused against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community "knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe".The court then said the term 'knowing' has to be understood and interpreted. In this context, the bench took note of Section 8(c), and found that this 'knowledge' could be found to arise on the basis of the evidence that is tendered. "When considering the question of prima facie case for the purpose of considering plea of bail during investigation and the period before trial, the knowledge shall be understood and inferred from the prosecution records," the Court observed. The court also noted that Section 506 IPC is an offence included in the schedule of the SC/ST Act and therefore attracts its Section 3(2)(va).The court concluded that the knowledge of accused about the victim's mother being a member of ST community could "very well be...

Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea of Accused Who Threatened Victim's Mother

Navya Benny

Tags