Kerala High Court
Shinu Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
2025:KER:45720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1053 OF 2025
CRIME NO.350/2025 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 IN CRMC NO.674 OF 2025
OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE SCHEDULED
CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
ALAPPUZHA.
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:
SHINU SHAJI
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SHAJI,
KOLLACHIRA HOUSE, CHERTHALA THEKKU,
CHERTHALA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688 524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 SHYAMLAL
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O SANTHAPPAN,
NEDUCHIRA HOUSE, AVALUKKUNNU.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 006.
BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN (SR.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45720
Crl.A.No.1053/2025 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
30-05-2025 in Crl.M.C No.674/2025 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 3 rd 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 learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant is the 3rd accused in Crime
No.350/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station. It is submitted
that the allegation is that the appellant, along with accused
Nos.1 and 2, had trespassed into the house of the de facto
complainant and had attacked him, causing injuries to him. It
2025:KER:45720
is submitted that a reading of the First Information Statement
of the de facto complainant would indicate that while there are
allegations of specific overt acts against accused Nos.1 and 2,
there is no allegation of any overt act against the appellant. It
is submitted that the only allegation raised against the
appellant is that he was carrying an axe like weapon and he had
threatened the de facto complainant, stating that he would be
done away with. It is submitted that the appellant has been in
custody for more than 50 days, and further detention of the
appellant is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
grant of bail to the appellant. It is the contention of the learned
Public Prosecutor that the appellant has criminal antecedents
and Crime No.1127/2023 of Arthungal Police Station,
Alappuzha district, alleging commission of offences under
Sections 294(b), 506, 451, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Crime No.997/2021 of
Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha district alleging
commission of offences under Sections 452, 326, 307 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC are registered against the appellant. It is
2025:KER:45720
submitted that Crime No.108/2025 of Arthungal Police Station,
Alappuzha district, alleging commission of offences under
Sections 329(3), 296(b), 351 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS is also
registered against the appellant. It is submitted that the notice
of this bail application has been served on the de facto
complainant.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the opinion that the appellant can be granted bail subject to
strict conditions. The appellant has been in custody for the
past 50 days. No specific allegation which indicates that the
appellant had caused injuries to the de facto complainant is
mentioned in the First Information Statement. The allegation
against the appellant is that he had used an axe like weapon
and had threatened the de facto complainant. The injuries
caused to the de facto complainant are specifically on account
of the overt acts by accused Nos.1 and 2. The Special Court
had rejected the application for bail mainly on the ground that
the appellant has criminal antecedents. While this is certainly a
factor that ought to be taken into consideration, the fact
2025:KER:45720
remains that the appellant has now been in custody in
connection with the present case for more than 50 days. His
continued detention not stated to be necessary for the purposes
of investigation.
5. Therefore, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned
order dated 30-05-2025 in Crl.M.C No.674/2025 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,
on every Saturday at 11.00 A.M. until further
orders;
iii.The appellant shall not attempt to interfere with
the investigation, influence or intimidate the
2025:KER:45720
de facto complainant or any witness in Crime
No.350/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station,
Alappuzha district;
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.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
