DATE: 12/01/2026
COURT: High Court of
Kerala
BENCH: Justice A.
Badharudeen
FACTS:
The appellants, Sri. Athul P. and Sri.
Ajeesh T., were initially arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 8 (later treated as
accused Nos. 5 and 6) in Crime No. 1111/2025 registered at Enath Police
Station, Pathanamthitta. They filed the present criminal appeal under Section
14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (as amended in 2018), challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 passed
by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Pathanamthitta, which dismissed
their application for anticipatory bail. The appeal arose out of allegations
involving offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, along with Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.
According to the prosecution, the incident
occurred at about 10.45 p.m. on 28.09.2025 at Kochukunnumukku, where the
accused persons allegedly hurled obscene caste-based abuses at the defacto
complainant, intimidated him with death threats, and physically assaulted him
and his companions. It was alleged that the first accused attempted to strike
the defacto complainant on the head with an iron rod, while other accused,
including the appellants, participated in the assault on the complainant’s
companions and caused damage to the complainant’s autorickshaw. The wound
certificate revealed injuries to the chest and abdomen and a lacerated head
injury, necessitating further medical evaluation. On these allegations, the
Special Court declined anticipatory bail, leading to the present appeal.
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Court was
whether the appellants, accused of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 and
non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were entitled to
anticipatory bail in view of the statutory bar contained under Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, and whether the prosecution materials disclosed a prima
facie case attracting the provisions of the said Act so as to justify denial of
pre-arrest bail.
JUDGEMENT WITH
REASONING:
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal
and affirmed the order of the Special Court rejecting anticipatory bail. The
Court directed the appellants to surrender before the Investigating Officer
forthwith, failing which the Investigating Officer was granted liberty to
arrest them in accordance with law to proceed with the investigation.
The Court, upon examining the First
Information Statement and the wound certificate, found that the prosecution
materials prima facie disclosed the commission of offences under the SC/ST
(POA) Act as well as non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. The medical records revealed injuries of a serious nature, including a
lacerated wound on the scalp and injuries to the chest and abdomen, thereby
lending credibility to the allegations of violent assault. The Court noted that
the appellants were specifically named by the defacto complainant, who was
acquainted with them, thereby permitting an inference that the accused had
knowledge of the caste identity of the victim, as contemplated under Section 8
of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.
The Court further held that Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 creates a statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory
bail when the prosecution records prima facie disclose the ingredients of
offences under the Act. Although the bar is not absolute and anticipatory bail
may be granted where the allegations do not attract the provisions of the Act,
the Court found that such a situation did not arise in the present case. Given
the seriousness of the allegations, the existence of non-bailable offences, and
the necessity for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons, the Court
concluded that grant of anticipatory bail would impede a fair and effective
investigation. Accordingly, the rejection of anticipatory bail was held to be
justified.
ANALYSIS
This case reaffirms the legal position
governing the grant of anticipatory bail in matters involving allegations under
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018. The Court emphasized that while
the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not absolute, it becomes operative the
moment the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case attracting the
provisions of the Act. By closely examining the First Information Statement and
the medical records, the Court found sufficient material indicating caste-based
abuse, violent assault, and the infliction of serious injuries. The fact that
the appellants were specifically named and were acquainted with the defacto
complainant enabled the Court to infer knowledge of the victim’s caste identity
under Section 8 of the Act, thereby satisfying a crucial statutory ingredient
at the prima facie stage.
The judgment also highlights the balancing
exercise between individual liberty and the societal interest in effective
investigation of grave offences. The Court underscored that anticipatory bail,
if granted in cases involving serious non-bailable offences and allegations
under the SC/ST Act, could frustrate investigation by hindering custodial
interrogation and recovery of weapons. By refusing to interfere with the
Special Court’s order, the Court reinforced the legislative intent behind
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, to prevent misuse of pre-arrest bail in cases of
caste-based atrocities while acknowledging that judicial scrutiny remains
available where allegations are demonstrably frivolous. The decision thus
strengthens the protective framework of the Act and clarifies the threshold for
invoking the statutory bar against anticipatory bail.
info@adhwaitha.com