Kerala High Court
Akhil C Babu vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
2025:KER:62767
CRL.A NO. 1478 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1478 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025 IN Crl.M.C NO.1025 OF 2025
OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/SOLE ACCUSED:
AKHIL C BABU, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. BABU S.R, CHOOLAPARAMBU HOUSE, BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O,
CHEMPU KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686605
BY ADV SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686605
SMT. SEENA C (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62767
CRL.A NO. 1478 OF 2025 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST
Act'), challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 in Crl.M.C.
No.1025 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam,
rejecting an application for anticipatory bail filed by the
appellant/accused in Crime No.748 of 2025 of
Thalayolaparambu Police Station, which was registered alleging
commission of offences under Section 296(b), 115(2), 126(2),
ad 118(1) of the BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Allegation against the appellant/accused is that, on
30.06.2025, at about 06.45 pm, the appellant, knowing fully well
that the de facto complainant is a member of one of the
scheduled castes, restrained the de facto complainant and his
friend Aswin, uttered obscene words and caused hurt to the de
facto complainant by squeezing his testicles and hitting him on
his testicles with a key. It is alleged that the appellant had done
so, owing to the fact that the appellant had a grievance against
2025:KER:62767
one Aswin (who was the friend of the de facto complainant) in
riding a bike through the road near the house of the de facto
complainant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the appellant is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is
submitted that, while there was some wordy altercation
between the appellant, the de facto complainant and his friend
Aswin, the appellant had no occasion, whatsoever, to commit
any offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the
appellant had not attacked the de facto complainant as alleged.
It is submitted that, a false complaint has been filed only to see
that the appellant is put behind bars. It is submitted that, the
offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are
not attracted for the reason that there is no allegation that the
offence was committed in public view. It is submitted that, in
such circumstances, the bar under the provisions of the SC/ST
Act prohibiting the grant of anticipatory bail will not apply.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
grant of bail. It is pointed out that the de facto complainant
had suffered injuries owing to the attack by the appellant. A
2025:KER:62767
copy of the medical examination report of the de facto
complainant is placed for the perusal of this court. Learned
Public Prosecutor also submits that since, admittedly, the
incident took place on a public road, the offences under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are clearly
attracted. Further, it is pointed out that since a scheduled
offence has also been committed by the appellant, the bar under
the provisions of the SC/ST Act for the grant of anticipatory bail
will apply and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to
anticipatory bail. It is submitted that, the appellant had
attacked the de facto complainant knowing fully well that the
de facto complainant was a member of one of the Scheduled
Castes. It is submitted that, the appellant has criminal
antecedents and is also included in the rowdy history sheet of
Thalayolaparambu police station. Learned Public Prosecutor
submits that the investigation is at a preliminary stage. It is
confirmed that notice of this appeal has been served on the de
facto complainant.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view
2025:KER:62767
that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to
conditions. The allegations against the appellant do not compel
me to hold that the he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of the allegations, custodial
interrogation of the appellant is not necessary. Prima facie, I
am convinced that there is merit in the contention taken by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the offence
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act may not be attracted as
there is no allegation that the appellant had attacked or abused
the de facto complainant in public view. The criminal
antecedents reported against the appellant do not compel me to
hold that he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 30.07.2025 in Crl.M.C. No.1025 of 2025 on the file of the
Sessions Court, Kottayam will stand set aside. It is directed
that the appellant shall be released on bail in the event of
arrest in connection with Crime No.748 of 2025 of
Thalayolaparambu Police Station subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall execute bond for a sum of
2025:KER:62767
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent
sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer;
(ii) The appellant shall appear before the
investigating officer in Crime 748 of 2025 of
Thalayolaparambu Police Station at 11.00 A.M on
25.08.2025 and 26.08.2025 and thereafter, as and when
called upon to do so;
(iii) The appellant shall not attempt to contact
the de facto complainant or interfere with the
investigation or to influence or intimidate the de facto
complainant or any other family members of the de facto
complainant or any witness in Crime No. 748 of 2025 of
Thalayolaparambu police station;
(iv) The appellant shall not involve in any other
crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the
investigating officer in Crime No. 748 of 2025 of
Thalayolaparambu Police Station may file an application before
the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.
2025:KER:62767
I make it clear that the observations in this order are
only for the purposes of considering the entitlement of the
appellant for anticipatory bail and shall not be treated as a
finding by this Court on any issue.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ajt
2025:KER:62767
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO: 748/2025 OF
THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF
APPELLANTS MOTHER SMT SALILA BABU FROM HOLY
GHOST MISSION HOSPITAL, MUTTUCHIRA DATED
2.07.2025
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.09.2024
IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 940/2020 ON THE FILES OF
THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS-I, VAIKOM
