Kerala High Court
Ranganayaki @ Pappathi vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025
2025:KER:68674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2025 IN CRL.M.P.NO.1101/2025 IN
CR.NO.821/2025 OF KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF THE
SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, MANNARKKAD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
RANGANAYAKI @ PAPPATHI,
AGED 62 YEARS,
OORKULAMKADU, MUTHALAMADA II VILLAGE, GOVINDAPURAM,
CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678507.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAMESH .P
SHRI.SAVINAY SUGUNAN P.S.
SMT.SABNA C.M.
SMT.LEEJI A.S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 VELLAYAN,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O KARUPPAN, CHAMPAKUZHI, MOOCHANKUNDU,
MUTHAMALAMADA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678507.
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:68674
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
SRI.BABU JOSE
SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
SHRI.ATHUL POULOSE
SMT.BINDU O V, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:68674
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging
Annexure A2 order dated 27.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1101/2025 arising
out of Crime No.821 of 2025 of Kollengode Police Station. The
appellant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.821 of 2025 of Kollengode
Police Station, Palakkad District, which has been registered alleging
commission of offences under Sections 127(1), 127(3), 115(2), 109 and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. The allegation leading to registration of Crime No.821 of 2025 of
Kollengode Police Station is that the appellant along with the 1 st
accused in the case had confined the de-facto complainant in a room in
the resort being run by the appellant together with the 1 st accused in the
case [who is none other than her son] on the allegation that the de-facto
complainant had stolen a bottle of beer. It is alleged that the de-facto
complaint was so confined without offering him food and water for
more than five days and he had to be rescued by the police after
breaking open the lock of the room.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
2025:KER:68674
submits that the appellant is a 62 year old women. It is submitted that
the allegations raised are false. It is submitted that the allegation that
the de-facto complainant was wrongfully confined for more than five
days without offering him food and water, is absolutely incorrect. It is
submitted that a false allegation has been raised to settle other disputes
between the de-facto complainant and the appellant / her son (1 st
accused). It is submitted that the appellant has been in custody for 26
days and continued detention of the appellant is not necessary for the
purpose of investigation into the case.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant vehemently oppose the
grant of bail to the appellant. It is submitted that there are clear
materials to show that the appellant along with her son (1 st accused),
had wrongfully confined the de-facto complainant, who belongs to one
of the Scheduled Tribes, for nearly five days, without offering him food
and water. It is submitted that there are video clippings of the de-facto
complainant being rescued from the room by the police together with
the local people, including Panchayat members. It is submitted that the
appellant has, therefore, committed the acts of severe cruelty against a
member of the Scheduled Tribes on the allegation that he had stolen a
bottle of beer. It is submitted that the 1st accused is still at large and the
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
2025:KER:68674
grant of bail to the appellant at this stage may not be conducive to the
investigation. It is submitted that this appeal may, therefore, be
dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant
also submits that the appellant is herself accused in several cases and
included in the rowdy list of Kollengode Police Station.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
appearing for the de-facto complainant, I am of the view that the
appellant can be granted bail, taking into consideration the fact that she
is a woman aged 62 and she has already been in custody for nearly 26
days. While the allegations raised against the appellant are serious, I
do not deem it necessary to deny bail to the appellant. However, in
order to ensure that she co-operates with the investigation and does not
attempt to influence the witnesses in any manner, it is necessary to
impose additional conditions.
5. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. The appellant is directed to 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 likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
2025:KER:68674
(ii) The appellant shall not enter the local limits of Kollengode Police
Station, Palakkad District, until further orders;
(iii) The appellant shall not involve in any other crime while on bail;
(iv) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any 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 or tamper with the evidence.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the
Investigating officer in Crime No.821 of 2025 of Kollengode Police
Station, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court for
cancellation of bail. I make it clear that the grant of bail to the
appellant/2nd accused is only taking into consideration of the fact that
she is 62 years of age and is a woman and has been in custody for more
than 26 days, and this order shall not have any effect on any bail
application that may be filed by the 1 st accused and if such bail
application is filed by the 1st accused, the same shall be decided on its
merits without being influenced by any observation in this order.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
CRL.A NO. 1675 OF 2025
2025:KER:68674
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIS AND FIR IN CRIME NO.
821 OF 2025 OF THE KOLLENGODE POLICE
STATION, PALAKKAD
Annexure A2 ACCUSED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN
OF 2025 OF KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DATED 27.08.2025
