Kerala High Court
Varghese Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 11 July, 2025
2025:KER:51210
CRL.A NO. 1061 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1061 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2025 IN CRL.M.C NO.598 OF 2025
OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT (SESSIONS COURT), ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VARGHESE VARGHESE , AGED 65 YEARS
S/O LATE MATHAI VARGHESE, CHIRAYILKALAM, PUTHENCHIRA,
PULINKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688504
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SRI.P.J.JOSE
SMT.AMRITHA.J
SHRI.KURUVILLA MATHEW
SHRI.VIPIN C. VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/STATE/INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688504
3 VIJAYAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O SANKARAN VELU, KAVALEKALATHILCHIRA,
KIZHAKKE KANNADY MURY, PULINCUNNU, PANCHAYAT WARD-VI,
KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688504
2025:KER:51210
CRL.A NO. 1061 OF 2025 2
4 NIRMALA, AGED 55 YEARS
KAVALEKALATHILCHIRA, KIZHAKKE KANNADY MURY,
PULINCUNNU, PANCHAYAT WARD-VI,
KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688504
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.K.RAKESH
SHRI.NAVEEN P. MATHEW
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN A,SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51210
CRL.A NO. 1061 OF 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 SC/ST
Act'), challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 on the file of the
Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Sessions Court) Alappuzha in
Crl.M.C. No.598 of 2025, rejecting the application filed by the
appellant for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.292
of 2025 of Pulincunnu Police Station. The appellant is the 1 st
accused in Crime No.292 of 2025 of Pulincunnu Police Station,
which has been registered alleging commission of offences
under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 74 of BNS
and under Sections 3(1)(s)and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that, the
appellant[ along with the co-accused in the case], trespassed
into the residential property of the de facto complainant , at
about 07.30 pm on 29.04.2025, and hurled abusive words by
referring to the de facto complainant and the other victim by
their caste name. It is alleged that the appellant along with the
other accused also assaulted the de facto complainant as also
2025:KER:51210
one of his relatives, named Nirmala.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that, actually the de facto complainant had trespassed into the
house of the appellant in an inebriated stage, at about 09.00 pm
on 30.04.2024, and had used abusive words when the wife and
daughter of the appellant had come out of their house. It is
submitted that, the wife and daughter of the appellant had filed
a complaint against the de facto complainant and in order to get
over the possibility of any action being taken against him in
that complaint, a false complaint has been registered by the de
facto complainant. It is submitted that, the de facto
complainant is in the habit of filing complaints misusing the
provisions of the SC/ST Act as is evident from the fact that
several complaints have been filed by the de facto complainant
in similar fashion against various persons in the locality. It is
also alleged that the complaint filed by the wife and daughter of
the appellant is prior in time to the complaint filed by the de
facto complainant.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent oppose the grant of
anticipatory bail. It is pointed out that there is a bar to the
grant of anticipatory bail in cases alleging commission of offene
2025:KER:51210
under the SC/ST Act. It is submitted that, since the appellant
has failed to make out any case to substantiate that the case
against him is not sustainable, the application for anticipatory
bail is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that, it is only
when this Court comes to the conclusion that no prima facie
case has been made out to invoke the provisions of the SC/ST
Act, can this Court grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent, I am of the view that the
appellant can be granted anticipatory bail. It is evident from
the facts narrated above that the appellant had also filed a
complaint against the de facto complainant alleging that the
de facto complainant had trespassed into the house of the
appellant and abused his wife and his daughter. The appellant's
wife has also filed a complaint in this regard and according to
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the complaint
filed by the wife of the appellant is prior in time to the
complaint filed by the 3 rd respondent. No criminal antecedents
are also reported against the appellant. Taking all these facts
into consideration, I am of the view that the appellant can be
granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained
2025:KER:51210
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. I take this view on
account of the fact that the allegation raised against the de
facto complainant that he had filed a false complaint, cannot be
completely ruled out at this stage.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 04.06.2025 in Crl.M.C. No.598 of 2025 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.292 of
2025 of Pulincunnu Police Station subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The 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 appellant shall appear before the
investigating officer in Crime No.292 of 2025 of
Pulincunnu Police Station 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
2025:KER:51210
complainant or any witness in Crime No.292 of 2025 of
Pulincunnu 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.292 of 2025 of Pulincunnu
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
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:51210
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT DATED
01.05.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.292/2025 ON THE FILES OF PULINKUNNU POLICE
STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.06.2025 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.598/2025 ON THE FILES OF SPECIAL
JUDGE UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT
(SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA)
