[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Athul .P vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2026
2026:KER:1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1111/2025 OF ENATH POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2025 IN CRMP NO.9150
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.6 AND 8:
1 ATHUL .P
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. PUSHKARAN ACHARI, AMAL BHAVANAM,
PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691552
2 AJEESH .T
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O THULASIDHARAN, KOCHUHTUNDIL, EDAKKAD P.O,
PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691552
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR
SHRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN
SRI.R.K.RAKESH
SMT.SREELAKSHMI P.S.
SMT.NANDIDA SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 MANESH
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN, MANESH BHAVANAM, KATTITHANVILA,
THUVAYOOR SOUTH P.O., KADAMBANADE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552
SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
3
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
Sri.Athul P. and Sri.Ajeesh T, who were initially got
arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 8 in crime No.1111/2025 of
Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta, have filed this criminal
appeal 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 26.11.2025 in
Crl.M.P.No.9150/2025 on the files of the Special Court for
SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Pathanamthitta, whereby the
learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at
the instance of the appellants.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1 st
respondent. Alhough notice was served upon the defacto
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
complainant, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, he did not turn up.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2),
118(1), 351(2), 110, 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as under
Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018
by the accused. The prosecution allegation is that at about
10.45 pm on 28.09.2025, at a place namely
Kochukunnumukku, hurling obscene words on the defacto
complainant and intimidating him with death, accused No.1 in
this crime had attempted to beat the defacto complainant
aiming at the head of the defacto complainant using an iron
rod. While hurling obscene words, the 2nd accused had
stamped on the right thigh of the defacto complainant.
Accused Nos. 5 and 6 along with the other accused persons
had attacked the persons, namely, Manikuttan, Akhil, Sreejith
and Kiran, who were accompanying the defacto complainant.
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
In addition to that, the accused persons had destructed the
autorickshaw owned by the defacto complainant.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants are innocent and the
occurrence took place during the Onam celebration and there
was no deliberate attempt in this case to commit the
offences. According to the learned counsel for the appellants,
none of the offences would attract against the appellants and
the appellants are ready to abide by any conditions as a pre-
requisite for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Special
Court went wrong in dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of
the appellants. As such the learned counsel for the
appellants pressed for interference in the order impugned.
5. Zealously opposing grant of anticipatory bail
to the appellants and fervently supporting the order
impugned, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the case
records, including FIS and the wound certificate of the
injured, to show the active involvement of the appellants in
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
the crime and to substantiate that prima facie the allegations
are made out. He also pointed out that as per Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, there is a bar to grant
anticipatory bail in cases where offences under the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 2018 are involved. According to him, in the
instant case, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of
weapon are necessary in relation to the appellants to
accomplish meaningful investigation and successful
prosecution. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to
the appellants and the order under challenge is liable to be
confirmed.
6. On perusal of the FIS, it could be gathered
that the accused persons, namely, Akhil, Athul, Ajeesh along
with Aravind, Anandu, Rahul and Jomon, followed and
assaulted the victims along with other identifiable persons.
As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as of now,
the appellants are accused Nos.5 and 6 in this case. On
perusal of the copy of the wound certificate, dated
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
28.09.2025, issued by the General Hospital, Adoor, the same
would show that the injured sustained injury to chest,
abdomen and also lacerated wound of 3 x 1 x 1 cm on the
right parietal aspect of the scalp. He was advised to undergo
CT examination of brain as well as surgery consultation on
the basis of the clinical examination. Thus prima facie the
prosecution records would show commission of offences
under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 as well as non-bailable
offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
(hereinafter referred to as 'BNS' for short). In such a case,
grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered.
7. As per Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
2018, application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure would not apply in relation to offences under the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018. In the same phraseology, Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, also
has no application in relation to offences under the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 2018. Thus, grant of anticipatory bail is barred
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
and the bar would apply when the prosecution materials
prima facie show commission of offences under the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 2018. Indubitably, it is well settled that the bar
under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 is not absolute,
when the prosecution records do not show the ingredients for
the offences under the Act. In the instant case, the defacto
complainant is a known person to the accused and therefore,
he named the assailants by disclosing their name with certainty
and therefore, the knowledge of the caste identity of the
defacto complainant to the accused can be inferred from the
circumstances, as provided under Section 8 of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, 2018. Apart from that, there is allegation of
commission of non-bailable offence punishable under Section
110 of BNS also. In such a case, anticipatory bail cannot be
granted as the same would impede the investigation.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed, confirming
the order of the Special Court, with a direction to the
appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 to surrender before the
2026:KER:1998
CRL.A NO. 2250 OF 2025
Investigating Officer forthwith. Failing which the Investigating
Officer is at liberty to arrest the appellants/accused to
proceed with the investigation.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
