Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Kerala Court took an at prima facie that making a casteist comment against an individual belonging from Schedule Caste community in the court "an insult in a place in public view", culpable under the SC/ST Act.
According to Vishak and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors, the Kerala High Court has held that offering an unfavorable comment against an individual having a place schedule caste or tribe community in their court circumference would add up to an insult in a place in public view", culpable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
On July 29, the Kerala High Court through Justice PB Suresh Kumar held in this way while discarding a bail request moved by two men blamed for ambush, making a casteist comment, and attacking a lady in her patio. The lady has a place with a Scheduled Caste.
Accused of offenses under the SC/ST Act as well as of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the accused applied to the Kozhikode Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed referring to their being accused of offenses under the SC/ST Act, which explicitly bars such an application.
In their appeal to the High Court, the accused asserted that: The charges were not borne out by the realities and that they didn't attack the lady, and, the supposed comment, being made in the patio of a house, was not "within public view" as required for an act to term offence.
For the subsequent contention, the Counsel for the accused depended on a decision by the Apex Court, which defined what established a place in publlic view. In Swara Singh v State of Punjab, court held that, the gate of a house is unquestionably a place within public view. It could have been an alternate issue had the supposed offense been committed inside a building, and furthermore was not in thepublic view.
In any case, if the offense is committed outside the structure for example in a garden outside a house, and the grass can be seen by somebody from the street or path outside the boundary wall, the yard would unquestionably be a place within the publiv view.
Likewise, regardless of whether the comment is made inside a building, yet a few individuals from public are there (not simply family members or companions) at that point it would still be an offense since it is in thepublic view.
Justice Suresh Kumar had acknowledged that the place of event of the offense must be considered before deciding if a place was in "public view".
Expressing that the Court was left with deciding the presence of a prima facie so as to decree the bail request, he saw the courtyard as a "place in piblic view" by all appearances.
Since the place of incident was the courtyard of the complainant’s house, it could not be contended that it was not a place in public view, Justice Kumar reasoned, "True, the Apex court took the view in the said case that the court has to see the place of occurrence to ascertain whether the place is within public view… In so far as the place of occurrence is the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant, according to me, it cannot be contended prima facie that it is not a place within public view."
Expressing in this manner, the applicant was excused, with an explanation that he was allowed to seek for regular bail if so wanted.
86540
103860
630
114
59824