Kerala High Court

Muhammed Navas vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2025

                                                            2025:KER:65691
Crl. Appeal No.1536/2025            -1-

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

          TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 4TH BHADRA, 1947

                           CRL.A NO. 1536 OF 2025

          CRIME NO.688/2025 OF Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad
          AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.08.2025 IN CMP NO.961 OF
  2025 OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA)ACT1989,
                                 MANNARKKAD

APPELLANT/S:

      1       MUHAMMED NAVAS
              AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SHOWKATH ALI, POOLONA VEEDU,
              KUNTHIPUZHA, MANNARKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
              PIN - 678583

      2       MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE K.
              AGED 46 YEARS, S/O HAMSA,
              KALLINGAL VEEDU, VANIYAMKULAM P.O,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K.
              SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE
              SMT.AYSHA A.A.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
              KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

      2       STATE OF KERALA
              SHORNUR P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 679121

      3       SREEJITH, M.K
              S/O. KUMARAN, MALAMKOTTA HOUSE,
              AMMINIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.
                                                                2025:KER:65691
Crl. Appeal No.1536/2025             -2-


              BY ADV SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN
              BY ADV. SMT. SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


       THIS    CRIMINAL    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON 26.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                2025:KER:65691
Crl. Appeal No.1536/2025              -3-

                               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 Atrocities Act'), challenging an order dated 08-08-2025 in

Crl. M.P. No.961/2025 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for Trial

of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad, through which an

application filed by the appellant for regular bail in connection with Crime

No.688/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad was rejected by that

court. Crime No.688/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station is one registered

alleging commission of offences under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 351

(2), 140 (3) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along

with Section 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.

2. The first appellant is the son-in-law of the 2 nd appellant. The

allegation is that at about 1.30 a.m. on 29-07-2025, the appellants contacted

the de facto complainant through the wife of the 1st appellant, since they had a

grudge against him. Allegedly, the wife of the 1 st appellant was having a

relationship with the de facto complainant. Following the phone call, the de-

facto complainant proceeded to meet the wife of the 1st appellant, and when

the de facto complainant reached a place called Kadambu at about 1.30 a.m.,

the appellants had knocked him down using their Bolero Jeep bearing

registration No.KL-55R-1935 and thereafter, they had forced him to get into 2025:KER:65691

the jeep and had severely manhandled him and had threatened to kill him. It

is alleged that the de facto complainant suffered serious injuries to his jaw

requiring surgical intervention, and thereby the appellants committed the

offences alleged against them.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the

appellants are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the de

facto complainant was maintaining a relationship with the wife of the 1 st

appellant/daughter of the 2nd appellant, and at about 1.00 AM on the day in

question, he was found in the house of the daughter of the 2 nd appellant. It is

submitted that on seeking the appellants, the de facto complainant attempted

to flee from the place on his motorbike, and he fell and sustained injuries.

Subsequently, a false case has been registered against the appellants. It is

submitted that out of the offences alleged against the appellants, the only

non-bailable offence against the appellants is the offence under Section 140

(3) of the BNS, corresponding to Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

which relates to an offence of abduction. It is submitted that the offence

under Section 117 (2) of the BNS corresponds to Section 325 of the IPC, and

the same is a bailable offence. It is submitted that the appellants are poor

coolie workers. It is submitted that the appellants have absolutely no criminal

antecedents. It is pointed out that they have been in custody for the past 27

days, and further detention is not necessary for investigation. It is submitted 2025:KER:65691

that the appellants will not meddle with the investigation and will co-operate

with the investigation in every manner, and further detention of the

appellants in custody is not necessary for the case.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de

facto complainant vehemently oppose the grant of bail to the appellants. The

seriousness of the offence committed by the appellants is pointed out. Sri. K.

Muhammed Salahudheen, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant,

has placed before me certain photographs and the medical report of the de

facto complainant to show the seriousness of the injury suffered by the de

facto complainant as a result of the attack by the appellants. It is submitted

that, out of sheer luck, the de facto complainant did not lose his life owing to

the attack. It is submitted that even assuming without conceding that there is

truth in the allegation that the de facto complainant was maintaining a

relationship with the wife of the 1st accused, the same was not a ground for the

appellants to take the law into their hands and to attack the de facto

complainant and cause injuries to him. It is submitted that the de facto

complainant is still undergoing treatment, and if the appellants are granted

bail at this stage, there is every chance that the appellants will again

intimidate or attack the de facto complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor

adds that the de facto complainant is not in a position to speak properly at

present, and it is only after his condition improves that the police can 2025:KER:65691

continue with the investigation. It is submitted that after taking a further

statement from the de facto complainant, custody of the appellants may be

necessary for completing the investigation into the case. It is submitted that

the investigation is only at a preliminary stage. It is also pointed out that there

is prima facie proof of the fact that the jeep involved in the case had been

used to knock down the de facto complainant.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned

Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto

complainant, I am of the view that the appellants can be granted bail. The

counsel for the de facto complainant may be right in contending that the de

facto complainant has suffered serious injuries. According to the appellants,

he suffered injury while trying to flee from the house of the daughter of the 2 nd

appellant in the late hours of 28-07-2025 - early morning of 29-07-2025. The

apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant

that the appellants may intimidate and threaten the de facto complainant if

they are on bail can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. The

requirement of further interrogation of the appellants after recording further

statements from the de facto complainant can also be taken care of by

imposing suitable conditions.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside,

and it is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail subject to the 2025:KER:65691

following conditions:

(i) The appellants shall execute separate bonds for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The appellants shall appear before the Investigating officer at 11 a.m

on every Saturday till filing of the final report and thereafter as and

when called upon to do so;

(iii) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any

police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(iv) The appellants shall surrender their Passports before the

jurisdictional Court. If the appellants do not have Passports, they

shall execute affidavits to that effect and file the same before the

jurisdictional court within seven days of release on bail;