Kerala High Court
Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49492
CRL.A NO. 990 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 990 OF 2025
CRIME NO.425/2025 OF Chittur Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2025 IN CRMP NO.549 OF 2025 OF
SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA)ACT1989, MANNARKKAD
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 JAYAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KALYANKULAMBU (H) NALLEPPILLY,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678553
2 SAROJINI, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O SWAMINATHAN
KALYANKULAMBU (H) NALLEPPILLY, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678553
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SMT.SWETHA R.
SMT.SREELAKSHMI SHIBU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 PRABITHA, AGED 28 YEARS
W/O SUBASH, KAVILKULAM, MANNATHKAVU, THATHAMANGALAM,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678553
ADV.SMT.SEENA C-PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49492
CRL.A NO. 990 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 19.05.2025 on the file of the
Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad in Crl.M.P.
No.549 of 2025 in Crime No.425 of 2025 of Chittur Police
Station, rejecting the application filed by the appellants for
anticipatory bail, finding that since prima facie the offences
punishable under the SC/ST Act have been committed, the
appellants are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that the appellants are absolutely innocent in the matter.
It is submitted that, the 1st appellant had lent some amounts to
the de facto complainant and when the 1 st appellant demanded
repayment of the said amount, the husband of the de facto
complainant trespassed into the house of the appellants and
assaulted the 1st appellant, resulting in a fracture to his toe. It
is submitted that, in order to get over the possibility of a case
being registered against the husband of the de facto
complainant, a false case alleging commission of offences
2025:KER:49492
[including the offence under the SC/ST Act] have been
registered against the appellants. It is submitted that, the
appellants have no criminal antecedents and taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellants may be granted anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that, the de facto
complainant had appeared before this Court on 02.07.2025 as
the notice given to her by police mentions 02.07.2025 as the
date of posting of this case. It is submitted that, the de facto
complainant is strongly opposing the grant of anticipatory bail
to the appellants. It is submitted that, according to the de facto
complainant, there is no monetary transaction between the 1 st
appellant and the de facto complainant and no scrap of paper is
produced to show that there had been any monetary transaction
between the 1st appellant and the de facto complainant. It is
submitted that, the 1st appellant allegedly trespassed into the
house of the de facto complainant and sexually assaulted the de
facto complainant and thus, he committed the offences alleged
against him. It is submitted that, the investigation is at a
preliminary stage and the grant of anticipatory bail to the
2025:KER:49492
appellant, at this stage, may not be conducive to the
investigation. It is submitted that, since there is a strong prima
facie case, the bar of grant of anticipatory bail under the
provisions of the SC/ST Act will operate against the 1 st
appellant. It is also submitted that the 2 nd appellant is no longer
an accused in the case.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view
that the 1st appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to
conditions. Since the name of the 2 nd appellant has already
been deleted from the array of accused, it is not necessary to
consider the case of the 2nd appellant for anticipatory bail. The
1st appellant does not have any criminal antecedents.
According to him, there were financial transactions between
him and the de facto complainant though there is nothing
presently to indicate that such financial transaction was actually
the basis for raising the allegations against the appellants. The
fact that the 1st appellant has no criminal antecedents compels
me to hold that the 1st appellant can be granted anticipatory
bail. Even if the allegations are taken as true, it does not
appear that the 1st appellant had any intention to commit any
2025:KER:49492
offence under the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the 1 st appellant can be
granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 19.05.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.549 of 2025 in Crime No.425 of
2025 of Chittur Police Station will stand set aside. It is directed
that the 1st appellant shall be released on bail in the event of
arrest in connection with Crime No.425 of 2025 of Chittur
Police Station subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The 1st appellant shall execute bond for a sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two
solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer;
(ii) The 1st appellant shall appear before the
investigating officer at 11.00 A.M on 14.07.2025 and
15.07.2025 and thereafter, as and when called upon to
do so;
(iii) The 1st appellant shall not attempt to
contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the
investigation or to influence or intimidate the victim or
any other family members of the victim or any witness in
Crime No.425 of 2025 of Chittur police station;
2025:KER:49492
(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.425 of 2025 of Chittur Police
Station may file an application before the jurisdictional court for
cancellation of bail
I make it clear that the observations in this order are
only for the purposes of considering the entitlement of the 1 st
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:49492
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS OF THE
PETITIONER BEFORE DOCTOR AMRITHA.T.S DATED
26.04.2025
Annexure-II A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.04.2025
FILED BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE
SHO CHITTUR POLICE STATION
