[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Gopakumar G B @ Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
2026:KER:12114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2346 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1072/2025 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2025 IN CRMC NO.48 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL
COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
1 GOPAKUMAR G B @ ANILKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KUMARA BHAVAN,
CHAMAVILA, VELLAIKADAVU, KODUNGANOOR PO, VATTIYOORKAVU
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
2 SATHEESH KRISHNAN P @ SUDHI
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O PRABHAKARAN, SUMATHI BHAVAN, SREE SARADHA DEVIPURAM
ASRAMAM ROAD, NETTAYAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695013
3 LAL PRAVEEN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O LALLUKUMAR, THINAVILA VEEDU, ASRAMAM ROAD, NETTAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
4 SREEJITH DAS @ MAHESH
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O DAS, RESIDING AT USHA BHAVAN, EEYYAKUZHI, NETTAYAM
PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUVIN.R.MENON
SMT.PARSHATHY S.R.
SHRI.ACHUTH KRISHNAN R.
SMT.CRISTY THERASA SURESH
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2026:KER:12114
Crl.A. No. 2346 of 2025
2
2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CANTONMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, VATTIYOORKAVU,
PIN - 695013
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, VATTIYOORKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
4 ANJALI
D/O BINDHU, MULAVUKADU VEEDU, MANALAYAM, KACHANI,
PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN - 695005
ADDL R5 ABHIJITH
S/O AJAYAN, MULAVUKADU VEEDU, MANALAYAM, KACHANI,
PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, KERALA
ADDL R6 AJITH
S/O AJAYAN, MULAVUKADU VEEDU, MANALAYAM,
KACHANI,PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, KERALA
(ADDL.R5 AND R6 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 12.01.2026 IN CRL A. NO. 2346/2025)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANAND REMESH
SMT.FEBA MARY THOMAS
SRI JAYAKRISHNAN P.P
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, THE COURT ON 10.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12114
Crl.A. No. 2346 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 [hereinafter
referred to as 'SC/ST POA Act, 2018' for short], challenging
order dated 29.11.2025 in Crl.M.C. No.48/2025 on the files of
the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Nedumangad,
whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the
anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants, who
are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1072/2025 of
Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the defacto
complainant/injured in this case, in detail. Perused the
verdict under challenge and the case diary placed by the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as
2026:KER:12114
'accused' and 'defacto complainant', hereafter.
4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 07.00
p.m. on 13.11.2025, Anilkumar (A1), Praveen (A2), Prasanth
(A3), Mahesh (A4) and Sudhi (A5), who do not belong to
either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community,
manhandled the defacto complainant, who belongs to
Scheduled Caste community. The specific allegation of the
prosecution further is that, on the previous day at about 5.30
p.m, while the defacto complainant was sweeping the
courtyard of her cousin's house, one Gokul, S/o Anil Kumar
(A1) came there and ashamed her referring her second
marriage. Thereafter, she informed the same to her mother
in the evening and Ajith (brother of the defacto complainant)
overheard the same and he went to the house of the 1 st
accused to ask about the incident. Thereafter, the defacto
complainant heard the outcry of Ajith and it was found that
Ajith was manhandled by the accused persons and Praveen
(A2) was possessing a black rod and other persons were
possessing wooden log and they manhandled Ajith by using
the same. Then, the defacto complainant interfered and Ajith
was saved, though he sustained injuries out of the
2026:KER:12114
occurrence. Later, when the defacto complainant informed
Anilkumar (A1) that, if there was any grievance, it would
have been informed to her, Praveen (A2) caught hold on her
and moved her away after uttering abusive words against
her. When the defacto complainant informed that she was
pregnant, Anilkumar (A1) uttered that, the defacto
complainant as a member of Vedar community and nobody
would question if she would be killed. Again, Praveen (A2)
abused and ashamed the defacto complainant, by calling her
caste name, within public view. On this premise, the
prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable
under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(1), 118(1) and 74 read
with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter
referred as 'BNS' for short] and under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, by the accused.
5. While pressing for interference of the order
impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would submit that, the allegations in toto are baseless and
this case has been foisted against the accused persons, after
noticing the fact that, Crime No.1071/2025 of Vattiyoorkavu
Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable
2026:KER:12114
under Sections 332(c) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the BNS
has been registered, at about 14.34 hours on 14.11.2025,
where the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 and
2 therein, who are one Abhi and an identifiable person,
trespassed upon the house of Sri.Gopakumar G.B., the
defacto complainant therein and threatened to throw bomb
at his house. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the said Sri.Gopakumar G.B. and the 1 st accused
herein (Anilkumar) are one and the same and the said fact is
stated in the appeal memorandum also. Thus, the argument
of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the entire
case is foisted and thus, prima facie, the allegations are not
at all substantiated and therefore, the order of the Special
Judge denying pre-arrest bail to the appellants/accused
would require interference and this appeal is liable to
succeed. He also pointed out that, the video of the real
incident has been handed over to the Investigating Officer
and the same would depict the truth of the allegations.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal
and submitted that going through the FIS, the ingredients for
the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act to be gathered prima
2026:KER:12114
facie and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is
specifically barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Therefore, the order of the Special Judge is only to be
confirmed by dismissing this appeal.
7. In this case, Annexure-A1 is the FIR registered in
this crime at about 15.42 hours on 14.11.2025 and
Annexure-A2 is the FIR registered based on the FIS given by
the 1st accused herein at about 14.34 hours on 14.11.2025.
Thus, Annexure-A2 is the FIR registered first and
Annexure-A1 was registered thereafter an hour and 12
minutes. Registration of Annexures-A1 and A2 FIR would
show that case as well as counter case have been registered
on the same day on the basis of the allegations raised from
both sides.
8. It is the settled law that, when prima facie
commission of offence/offences punishable under the SC/ST
(POA) Act is made out, grant of anticipatory bail is legally
barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and grant of
anticipatory bail is permissible only if the prosecution
allegations in toto do not substantiate, prima facie, offences
under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
2026:KER:12114
9. Insofar as case and counter case are concerned,
the truth of the allegations can only be found out, after
investigation and trial, after evaluating the evidence. Thus,
at this stage, what is required is to be considered is whether
the allegation as to commission of offences under Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by the accused is
made out, prima facie or not in the context of the contra
allegations.
10. On perusal of the FIS given by the defacto
complainant, the same would show that, at about 07.00 p.m.
on 13.11.2025, Anilkumar (A1), Praveen (A2), Prasanth (A3),
Mahesh (A4) and Sudhi (A5), who do not belong to either
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, manhandled
the defacto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste
community. The specific allegation of the prosecution further
is that, on the previous day at about 5.30 p.m, while the
defacto complainant was sweeping the courtyard of her
cousin's house, one Gokul, S/o Anil Kumar (A1) came there
and ashamed her referring her second marriage. Thereafter,
she informed the same to her mother in the evening and
Ajith (brother of the defacto complainant) overheard the
2026:KER:12114
same and he went to the house of the 1 st accused to ask
about the incident. Thereafter, the defacto complainant
heard the outcry of Ajith and it was found that Ajith was
manhandled by the accused persons and Praveen (A2) was
possessing a black rod and other persons were possessing
wooden log and they manhandled Ajith by using the same.
Then, the defacto complainant interfered and Ajith was
saved, though he sustained injuries out of the occurrence.
Later, when the defacto complainant informed Anilkumar
(A1) that, if there was any grievance, it would have been
informed to her, Praveen (A2) caught hold on her and moved
her away after uttering abusive words against her. When the
defacto complainant informed that she was pregnant,
Anilkumar (A1) uttered that, the defacto complainant as a
member of Vedar community and nobody would question if
she would be killed. Again, Praveen (A2) abused and
ashamed the defacto complainant, by calling her caste
name, within public view. Thus, it is discernible that, some
overt acts, which would attract offences under Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, are alleged
against the 1st and 2nd accused and the other accused stated
2026:KER:12114
nothing to attract offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act,
though the prosecution case is that, all the accused have
shared common object while committing the crime.
11. Here, case and counter case have been registered,
as already pointed out. The prosecution materials do not
show any overt acts in specific by accused Nos.4 and 5 to
attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, there is no necessity to deny anticipatory
bail to them. It is pertinent to note that, when case and
counter have been registered, it is not safe to say that in
both crimes the allegations to be true, though the allegations
in both crimes would require investigation to find the truth
thereof. In such case, grant of anticipatory bail to be
considered in the interest of justice to avoid unnecessary
detention of innocent persons. Thus, I hold that appellants
herein are liable to be released on anticipatory bail.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order
impugned is set aside and appellants shall be released on
pre-arrest bail on the following conditions:-
i) Appellants shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within seven days from
2026:KER:12114
today. On such surrender, the Investigating Officer
can interrogate them and effectuate recovery, if
any, in between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. for two
days. In the event of the arrest of appellants, they
shall be produced before the Special Court on the
date of arrest itself.
ii) On such production the Special Court shall
release the appellants on bail on them executing
bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court
concerned.
iii) Appellants shall not intimidate witnesses
or tamper the evidence. They shall cooperate with
the investigation and shall be available for
interrogation as and when directed by the
Investigating Officer.
iv) Appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the Special Court without prior permission of
the court.
v) Appellants shall not, directly or indirectly
2026:KER:12114
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of this case, so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court.
vi) Appellants shall not involve in any other
offence during the currency of bail and any such
event, if reported to came to the notice of this
court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the
bail hereby granted.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
SK
JUDGE
