Kerala High Court
Vijith vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2025
2025:KER:52012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1231 OF 2025
CRIME NO.350/2025 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2025 IN CRL.MC NO.745 OF 2025
OF COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
VIJITH
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.BIJU,
PALLIVELI HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688 524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 SHYAMLAL
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O SANTHAPPAN,
NEDUCHIRA HOUSE, AVALUKKUNNU.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 006.
BY ADV. SHEEBA THOMAS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52012
Crl.A.No.1231/2025 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST Act), challenging the order dated
18-06-2025 in Crl.M.C No.745/2025 on the file of the Court of
the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Alappuzha, through which
an application for regular bail filed by the appellant was
dismissed by that Court. The appellant is the 2 nd accused in
Crime No.350/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station,
Alappuzha district, which has been registered alleging
commission of offences under Sections 333, 118(2), 109(1),
351(2), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
2. The allegation against the appellant/2 nd accused is that
the appellant/2nd accused, together with the other accused, had
trespassed into the house belonging to the wife of the
de facto complainant and had attacked the de facto
complainant, causing injuries to him. It is alleged that the
1st accused had attacked the de facto complainant using a
2025:KER:52012
sword like weapon. While the appellant/2 nd accused had
attacked the de facto complainant using a pipe filled with
concrete. It is alleged that owing to the attack by the
appellant/2nd accused, the de facto complainant had suffered
injuries on his head. The appellant/2 nd accused was arrested on
16-05-2025 and has been in custody since that date.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/2nd accused submits that the appellant/2 nd accused is
innocent of all the allegations levelled against him. It is
submitted that the appellant/2nd accused has been in custody
since 16-05-2025, and has completed nearly 60 days in custody.
It is submitted that the continued detention of the
appellant/2nd accused is not necessary for the purposes of
investigation, and the appellant/2nd respondent may therefore
be granted bail subject to conditions.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
grant of bail. It is submitted that the appellant/2 nd accused and
other accused in the case have criminal antecedents. Insofar as
the appellant/2nd accused in concerned, it is submitted that the
appellant/2nd accused is accused in Crime No. 848/2024
registered for the offence under Sections 329(3), 115 (2), 333,
2025:KER:52012
126(2), 74, 118(1), 296(b) of the BNS, Crime No.98/2024
registered for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)A of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and
Crime No.1127/2023 registered for the offence under
Sections 294(b), 506, 451, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. It is submitted that KAAPA proceedings are being
initiated against the appellant and the other accused in the
case, as they are regular offenders. It is submitted that in such
circumstances, the appellant/2nd accused should not be granted
bail. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that notice of this
appeal has been served on the de facto complainant.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/2nd accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, and
on the short ground that the appellant/2 nd accused has been in
custody for nearly 60 days, I am of the view that the
appellant/2nd accused can be granted bail subject to strict
conditions to ensure that he does not commit any further
offence while on bail. It is true that the appellant/2 nd accused
has criminal antecedents. However, interest of justice requires
that the appellant/2nd accused be granted bail, taking into
account the fact that he has been in custody for 60 days.
2025:KER:52012
6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned
order dated 18-06-2025 in Crl.M.C No.745/2025 on the file of
the Court of the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Alappuzha, will
stand set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be
released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-
i. The appellant 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 jurisdictional Court;
ii. The appellant shall report before the
Investigating officer in Crime No.350/2025 of
Mararikkulam Police Station, Alappuzha district,
as and when summoned to do so;
iii. The appellant shall not attempt to interfere with
the investigation, influence or intimidate the
defacto complainant or any witness in Crime
No.350/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station,
Alappuzha district;
iv.The appellant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
2025:KER:52012
person 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 tamper with any
evidence in the case;
vi. 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.350/2025 of Mararikkulam
Police Station, Alappuzha district, may file an application
before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats
