Kerala High Court
Pramod. P vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2025
2025:KER:51643
CRL.A NO. 962 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 962 OF 2025
CRIME NO.535/2024 OF Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2025 IN Crl.MP NO.776 OF 2025
OF SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA)
ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PRAMOD. P, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O PARTHAN PILLAI ,KARTHIKA PARIYARAM CHOONDI,
PUTHENCRUZ ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:51643
CRL.A NO. 962 OF 2025 2
2 SREEJA KM, AGED 45 YEARS
W/O SETHUGOPAL G, RESIDING AT SREENIVAS HOUSE,
KALATHIPARAMBU, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY, NORTH VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN A,SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51643
CRL.A NO. 962 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 24.05.2025 on the file of the
Special Court for the trial of offences under SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 in Crl.M.C. No.776 of 2025, dismissing the
application filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.535 of 2024 of Edathala Police
Station. The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.535 of
2024 of Edathala Police Station, which has been registered
alleging commission of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST Act.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that, while
working as Vice-Principal of Bharat Mata School of Legal
Studies, the appellant insulted the de facto complainant, who is
also a teacher in the said institution, in public view since, she,
as in-charge of the drama competition of the college, had
permitted late night rehearsal without the permission of the
appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant had humiliated
2025:KER:51643
the de facto complainant by referring to her caste name.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the appellant is innocent in the matter. It is submitted that,
even going by the allegations, the appellant had only
reprimanded the de facto complainant as a part of enforcing
discipline in the college, which was his duty as the Vice-
Principal. It is submitted that, the allegation that there was a
casteist slur is false, and such an allegation has been raised
only to incorporate an offence under the SC/ST Act against the
appellant. It is submitted that, there has been no such
allegation against the appellant hereinbefore. It is also pointed
out that the allegations raised against the appellant are not
sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. It is submitted that, even if
all the allegations in the First Information Statement are taken
as true, the appellant has not committed any offence under the
SC/ST Act.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. It is pointed out that,
going by the allegations in the First Information Statement, the
appellant had referred to the de facto complainant by her caste
name and had even stated that she is engaged in such activities
2025:KER:51643
only on account of her caste. It is submitted that, since there is
a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail in offences relating to the
SC/ST Act, this Court can grant anticipatory bail to the
appellant only if this Court were to conclude that, prima facie,
none of the offences under the SC/ST Act are attracted.
Learned Public Prosecutor confirms that notice of the bail
application 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 opinion
that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to
conditions. The allegation against the appellant is that he had
reprimanded the de facto complainant in his capacity as Vice-
Principal of a college, in which the de facto complainant is also
working. While the question as to whether the appellant had
used any words, which would amount to an offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, is a matter to be proved, the
fact remains that the appellant had admittedly reprimanded the
de facto complainant for having permitted the conduct of the
drama rehearsal in the college premises beyond permitted
hours. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, upon these
allegations, denial of anticipatory bail to the appellant on
2025:KER:51643
account of the provisions under the SC/ST Act may not be
justified.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 24.05.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.776 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.535 of 2024
of Edathala 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.535 of 2024 of Edathala Police
Station as and when called upon to do so;
(iii) The appellant shall not intimidate the de facto
complainant or interfere with the investigation or
attempt to influence or intimidate the de facto
complainant or any witness in Crime No.535 of 2024
of Edathala police station;
(iv) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
2025:KER:51643
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
Police Officer;
(v) The appellant shall not be involved in any other
crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating
officer in Crime No.535 of 2024 of Edathala 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:51643
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION BY THE
COMPLAINANT ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE
COLLEGE DATED 01.02.2024
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
10.01.2024 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DATED
14.03.2024 ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DATED
19.07.2024 ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL
Annexure 5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN
CRIME NO. 535/2024 OF EDATHALA POLICE
STATION
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, ALUVA
