Aboobacker N.K vs The State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1959 Ker

Kerala High Court

Aboobacker N.K vs The State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026

                                                           2026:KER:16176

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

     MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947

                       CRL.A NO. 174 OF 2026

     CRIME NO.68/2026 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2026 IN CRMP NO.1 OF 2026 OF SPECIAL

             COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI


APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

           ABOOBACKER N.K
           AGED 60 YEARS
           S/O. ALAVI, NAMBANKUNNAN HOUSE, THADAPARAMBA, MELMURI,
           ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676514

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K.
           SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N
           SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE
           SMT.A.A.AMRITHA SREELAKSHMI

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

     1     THE STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

     2     THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM
           OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NEAR DISTRICT
           POLICE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
           PIN - 676505

     3     CHANDRAN K
           AGED 51 YEARS
           S/O.NADI, THADAPARAMBATH HOUSE, THADAPARAMBU , MELMURI
           P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676514

           SR PP - RENJITH GEORGE


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.02.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                   2026:KER:16176
Crl.A. No. 174 of 2026
                                          2



                                                                    "C.R"
                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd 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 31.01.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 on the files of

the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjery,

whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the

anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellant, who is

the sole accused in Crime No.68/2026 of Malappuram Police

Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict

under challenge and the case diary placed by the learned

Public Prosecutor. Even though, notice has been served upon

the 3rd respondent, he did not appear.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as

'accused' and 'defacto complainant', hereafter.

2026:KER:16176

4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 08.00

hours on 11.01.2026, the accused, who does not belong to

either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and

being aware of the caste identity of the defacto complainant

as a member of Scheduled Caste community, called caste

name of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained and

threatened to kill him, due to animosity arose out of a

boundary dispute in between them and thereby the defacto

complainant was abused within public view. On this premise,

the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable

under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as 'BNS' for short]

and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act, 2015, by the accused.

5. While pressing for interference in the order

impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the accused

would submit that, the accused is innocent and the entire

case has been foisted against him to wreak vengeance, since

he had filed suit as O.S. No.235/2024 before the Munsiff

Court, Manjery, seeking prohibitory injunction restraining

trespass upon his property by the defacto complainant and 2026:KER:16176

others, as early on 31.05.2024, where the defacto

complainant herein got arrayed as the 3 rd defendant.

Therefore, prima facie, the allegations are false and same

could not be the basis to proceed against the accused.

Further, the learned counsel for the accused offered

co-operation of the accused in the matter of investigation.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused pressed for

interference in the impugned order and grant of pre-arrest

bail to the accused.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the plea of

pre-arrest bail and submitted that going through the FIS, the

ingredients for the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act to be

gathered prima 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. On perusal of the FIS, it could be seen that, at

about 08.00 hours on 11.01.2026, there was a quarrel in

between the defacto complainant and the accused regarding

the boundary separating their properties and during

exchange of words, the accused alleged to have called the 2026:KER:16176

caste name of the defacto complainant, within public view,

wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill him.

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.

9. Thus, while considering anticipatory bail plea

raised by an accused, who alleged to have committed

offence/offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the Court has to

consider the genesis of the case and attending

circumstances with a view to find whether prima facie, the

offence/offences is/are made out. While undertaking the said

exercise, the entire records, including the motive behind

registration of the crime, previous rivalry between the

parties, previous litigation between parties and element of

false implication shall be matters of consideration. In the

instant case, admittedly a suit has been filed by the

appellant/accused against the defacto complainant and 2026:KER:16176

others for prohibitory injunction. In fact, even as per the

prosecution allegation, the quarrel between the defacto

complainant and the accused arose out of a boundary

dispute i.e. the subject matter of civil suit. Even though while

evaluating materials, some ingredients for the offences

alleged are made out, such allegations would require

thorough investigation to find the truth thereof, especially on

the factual background that a civil dispute is pending

between the same parties to avoid false implication and

detention of rival/litigating party in jail. When there is rivalry

between the parties, previous or pending litigation between

the parties, false implication could not be ruled out and in

such cases it is not safe to conclude that the allegations are

prima facie made out for the purpose of Section 18 of the

SC/ST (POA) Act, though investigation must go on to reach a

logical conclusion regarding the allegations. In such cases,

grant of anticipatory bail to be considered in the interest of

justice to avoid unnecessary detention of innocent persons.

Thus, I hold that accused/appellant herein is liable to be

released on anticipatory bail, taking into consideration the

particular facts of this case.

2026:KER:16176

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order

impugned is set aside and appellant/accused shall be

released on pre-arrest bail on the following conditions:-

i) The appellant/accused shall surrender

before the Investigating Officer within seven days

from today. On such surrender, the Investigating

Officer can interrogate him and effectuate

recovery, if any, in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00

p.m. for two days. In the event of the arrest of

appellant, he shall be produced before the Special

Court on the date of arrest itself.

ii) On such production the Special Court shall

release the appellant on bail on him 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) The appellant/accused shall not

intimidate witnesses or tamper the evidence. He

shall cooperate with the investigation and shall be

available for interrogation as and when directed 2026:KER:16176

by the Investigating Officer.

iv) The appellant/accused shall not leave the

jurisdiction of the Special Court without prior

permission of the court.

v) The appellant/accused shall not, directly

or indirectly 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) The appellant/accused 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 2026:KER:16176

APPENDIX OF CRL.A NO. 174 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure - A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.68/2026 OF MALAPPURAM, POLICE STATION Annexure - A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.235/2024 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI Annexure - A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 20/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE MICC HOSPITAL Annexure - A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 02/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE MICC HOSPITAL Annexure - A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OUT-PATIENT RECORD DATED 11/01/2026 ISSUED FROM PMSA MEMORIAL CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL