Kerala High Court

Suresh P.T vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025

                                                            2025:KER:54598
Crl. Appeal No.1320/2025             -1-

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

       WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947

                           CRL.A NO. 1320 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.694/2025 OF Koothattukulam Police Station, Ernakulam

          AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2025 IN CRMP NO.1278

   OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989,

                                   ERNAKULAM

APPELLANT/S:

      1       SURESH P.T
              AGED 65 YEARS
              PARAYIDUKKIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686662

      2       SUJITH SURESH
              AGED 37 YEARS
              S/O. SURESH, PARAYIDUKKIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU P.O,
              KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686662

              BY ADVS.
              SHRI.JOHN VARGHESE
              SRI.SABU JOHN


RESPONDENT/S:

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

      2       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
              POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR,
              ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101

      3       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
              PUTHANCRUZ P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308.
                                                                2025:KER:54598
Crl. Appeal No.1320/2025             -2-


      4       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
              KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686662

      5       REGI K.R.
              S/O. RAJAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MYTHRI JUNCTION
              BHAGAM, MARIKA KARA, PALAKKUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
              PIN - 686662

              SRI. RENJITH GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


       THIS    CRIMINAL    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON 23.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                               2025:KER:54598
Crl. Appeal No.1320/2025              -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 order dated 05-07-2025 in Crl.

M.P. No.1278/2025 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under

the SC/ST (POA) Act, Ernakulam through which an application filed by the

appellants for anticipatory bail in Crime No.694/2025 of Koothattukulam

Police Station was rejected by that court.

2. The allegations leading to registration of Crime No.694/2025 of

Koothattukulam Police Station are that when the de facto complainant

approached the 2nd appellant demanding for payment of certain money in

connection with construction of the house of the 2 nd appellant, he abused the

de facto complainant, humiliating him by calling his caste name and uttered

obscene words and assaulted him.

3. It is alleged that the 1st appellant (father of the 2 nd appellant/1st

accused) also assaulted the de facto complainant and thereby the appellants

have committed the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 296

(b), 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3 (2) (va) & 3 (1) (s) of

the Atrocities Act, 1989.

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

appellants are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the de 2025:KER:54598

facto complainant is a building contractor with whom the 2 nd appellant had

entered into an agreement for construction of his house. It is submitted that

though the work was to be completed within 8 months in terms of the written

agreement, the work was not completed within the said period. It is submitted

that on various dates a total sum of Rs.36,61,668/- had been paid by the

appellants to the de facto complainant and on 16-07-2020 a further amount

of Rs.2,61,668/- was paid. It is submitted that since the de facto complainant

had received more money what he was entitled and since the work was not

completed the appellants were forced to complete the work through another

contractor and now the de facto complainant is demanding more money for

the work done by him. The learned counsel further pointed out that several

complaints were made earlier and each time it was either closed or referred to

the 4th respondent and ultimately treated as a matter of civil nature. He

further emphasised one particular incident to substantiate the claim that the

offence alleged in Crime No. 694/2025 is false and fabricated. On 11-06-2025,

the de facto complainant assaulted the 2nd appellant and his wife while they

were returning home after dropping their child at the bus stop, in the private

road leading to their house and thereafter, the de facto complainant tore his

shirt and created a scene, which was videographed. The 2 nd appellant and his

wife were admitted to the Community Health Centre, Koothattukulam and

they were discharged on the following day (12-06-2025). On 11-06-2025 2025:KER:54598

itself, the 2nd appellant filed a complaint against the de facto complainant,

which was registered as Crime No. 691/2025 of Koothattukulam Police

Station for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), and 324(4) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was only subsequent to the registration

of the said crime that the de facto complainant gave statement to the police,

leading to the registration of Crime No. 694/2025 of Koothattukulam Police

Station. It is submitted that a pure civil dispute has been converted to a

criminal case by the de facto complainant to gain unfair advantage. It is

submitted that the appellants have not committed any offence as alleged in

the complaint filed by the de facto complainant.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. He submits

that the provisions of the Atrocities Act specially prohibits grant of

anticipatory bail except in a case where this court were to prima facie come to

the conclusion that an offence under the Atrocities Act had not been

committed. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, it is the

complaint of the de facto complaint that the appellants had abused him by

calling is caste name and had also assaulted him in a public place. It is

submitted that investigation in the matter is progressing and grant of

anticipatory bail to the appellants at this stage may not be conducive to the

investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the notice of this

appeal has been served on the de facto complainant.

2025:KER:54598

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the appellants can be granted

anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in the provisions of the

Atrocities Act. The admitted facts show that the 2 nd appellant had entered into

an agreement with the de facto complainant for construction of his house.

The said agreement was placed on record before the Special Court. According

to the appellants the de facto complainant had failed to complete the work in

terms of the agreement forcing them to complete the work through another

contractor. This shows that there are civil disputes between the appellants

and the de facto complainant. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel

for the appellants that a false case has been registered only to get unfair

advantage in the civil dispute cannot be completely ruled out. Moreover, the

fact that the de facto complainant assaulted the 2nd appellant and his wife,

which led to the registration of Crime No. 691/2025 of Koothattukulam Police

Station, and that this incident occurred prior to the crime in which the

appellants are seeking anticipatory bail, also compels me to allow this appeal.

Therefore notwithstanding the bar contained in the Atrocities Act, I am of the

view that the appellants can be granted anticipatory bail. No criminal

antecedents are reported against the appellants.

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

it is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest 2025:KER:54598

in connection with Crime No.694/2025 of Koothattukulam Police Station,

Ernakulam subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer;

(ii) Appellants shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime

No.694/2025 of Koothattukulam Police Station, Ernakulam at 11 a.m on

30-08-2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so;

(iii) Appellants shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or

interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in

Crime No.694/2025 of Koothattukulam Police Station, Ernakulam;