[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Renjith Lal vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2026
Crl.A. No. 29 of 2026
2026:KER:7596
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 29 OF 2026
CRIME NO.2570/2025 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2025 IN CRMC NO.53 OF 2025
OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA)ACT1989,
NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RENJITH LAL
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. SASIDHARA PANICKER,
RENJITH BHAVAN, ARAAMTHANAM,
VAMANAPURAM P.O.,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 695606
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 682031
Crl.A. No. 29 of 2026
2026:KER:7596
2
2 SANDEEP
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNA KANI, SOUMYA BHAVAN, PAYATTINGA
KUZHI, THALIKKUZHI DESOM, PULIMATH VILLAGE,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695612
R1 BY ADV.ANIMA.M, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2026, THE COURT ON 30.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A. No. 29 of 2026
2026:KER:7596
3
'C.R'
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 30th day of January, 2026
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Sri. Renjith
Lal, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 2570/2025 of
Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.
3. Today the defacto complainant also appeared in
person and he also was heard.
4. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission
of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1),
115(2), 296(b) & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short, 'BNS', hereinafter) as well as under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
2026:KER:7596
Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST (PoA) Act' hereinafter), by
the appellant/accused.
5. The prosecution case is that, the appellant/
accused, who does not belong to either the Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, wrongfully
restrained the defacto complainant, who is a member of
Scheduled Tribe community and verbally abused and
threatened him at 8.15 pm on 20.11.2025. According to
the prosecution, thereafter, the appellant/accused
manhandled the defacto complainant by using an iron
rod. That apart, the appellant/accused beat on the head
of the defacto complainant by using a bamboo stick; and
thereby, he sustained injuries. The further allegation is
that the appellant/accused called the caste name of the
defacto complainant within public view and thereby,
abused him within public.
2026:KER:7596
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that as per the FIS itself, it could be seen that
there were financial transactions in between the defacto
complainant and the appellant/accused and in para No. 3
of the appeal memorandum, the appellant/accused
specifically contended as under:-
"3. The allegation put forwarded by the de facto
complainant is false and concocted story. The de facto
complainant is the real aggressor. He after borrowing an
amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the appellant defrauded
and cheated him. When the appellant constantly
demanded the amount, the de facto complainant issued
him two cheques bearing No. 470028 and 556449 in the
account maintained by him at State Bank of India,
Kallambalam Branch dated 21.10.2025 and 27.10.2025
for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-
respectively."
7. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant, after dishonour of the two cheques issued by
the defacto complainant in favour of the
2026:KER:7596
appellant/accused, when the appellant/accused called the
defacto complainant demanding the money, as directed
by the defacto complainant, he reached at Kilimanoor on
20.11.2025 and there occurred a scuffle, whereby, the
appellant/accused also sustained serious injuries and he
underwent treatment. In support of the same, the learned
counsel for the appellant placed O.P. Ticket issued from
Community Health Centre, Kesavapuram showing that he
had approached the doctor with history of trauma head
and he was advised to have CT scan examination and X-
Ray examination of spine, despite prescribing medicines.
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
since the defacto complainant came to know about the
dishonour of two cheques issued by him for
Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- each),
on 21.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, a false case has been
2026:KER:7596
foisted against the appellant/accused to avoid repayment
of the said sum and according to him, as against the
defacto complainant also crime was registered at
Kilimanoor Police Station as Crime No. 2571/2025
alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 296(b), 126(2), 118(1), 115(2) of the BNS,
2023. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant 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 appellant/accused would require
interference and this appeal is liable to succeed.
8. 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 facie and in such a case, grant of
2026:KER:7596
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.
9. The defacto complainant, who is admittedly
working as Senior Grade Typist in Jail Department
submitted that the allegations stated in the FIS are
correct. According to him, there were financial
transactions in between the appellant/accused and
himself and the same was closed in the year 2017 and on
closure of the liability, the title deed entrusted to the
appellant/accused was returned. Thereafter, he made
complaints against the appellant/accused and also put
applications under the Right to Information Act to get
certain details. In view of the said development, the
appellant/accused has been inimical towards him and as
an after thought, he was attacked after abusing him by
2026:KER:7596
calling his caste name. Therefore, he opposed grant of
anticipatory bail by upsetting the order of the Special
Court.
10. On perusal of the FIS, the specific allegation is
that when the defacto complainant reached Kilimanoor to
go to his wife's house on 19.11.2025 and when the
defacto complainant reached Vilakkottukonam, the
appellant/accused placed his motor cycle in front of
defacto complainant's motor cycle and stopped defacto
complainant's motor cycle. When the defacto complainant
enquired the reason for the same, the appellant/accused
beat on his helmet by using an iron piece and helmet was
thrown out. When he fell down, the appellant/accused
beaten on his chest and beat on his head by using helmet
repeatedly. Thereby, he sustained injury on his eye and
his spectacles were broken. Further allegation is that by
2026:KER:7596
using a bamboo stick, the appellant/accused beat on his
head and also abused him by calling his caste name with
criminal intimidation.
11. It is to be noted that Annexure A is the FIR
registered in this case and Annexure C is the FIR
registered against the defacto complainant as counter
case. On perusal of Annexure A, it is seen that the same
was registered on 21:55 on 21.11.2025 and Annexure C
was registered on 15:23 on 22.11.2025.
12. On perusal of the First Information Statement
given by the appellant/accused, the attack, as alleged, to
be seen. However, it is discernible from the contentions
raised by the appellant/accused that admittedly there
were financial transactions in between the defacto
complainant and the appellant/accused and according to
the defacto complainant, the same was closed during
2026:KER:7596
2017. But the appellant/accused submitted that the
financial liability admitted by the defacto complainant is
still subsisting and two cheques alleged to be issued by
the defacto complainant for repayment of the said liability
to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.
1,50,000/- each), got dishonoured on 21.10.2025 and
27.10.2025 and when this matter was informed, there
was discussion of the same, on the date of occurrence
and thereafter, the appellant/accused manhandled the
defacto complainant. According to the learned counsel for
the appellant, the place of occurrence is at Kilimanoor and
there is no necessity for the appellant/accused to reach
that place with iron piece as well as bamboo stick to
attack the defacto complainant. Thus no prima facie case
made out from the prosecution allegations, and as such
grant of bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is
2026:KER:7596
not barred.
13. In view of the rival submissions, the court has a
duty to look into the allegations and also the attending
circumstances to see whether prima facie allegations are
believable.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant placed a
verdict of the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 12144 of 2025
dated 12.01.2026, where the Apex Court discussed the
ingredients for the offences under Section 3(1)(r) and
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The relevant
paragraphs 10 to 12 and 15 to 17 are extracted
hereunder:-
"10. We shall fist proceed to examine whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act
respectively are disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR
and the chargesheet. The sections read as under:-
"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.--
[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a
2026:KER:7596
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name
in any place within public view;"
11. This Court in Shajan Skaria v. The State of
Kerala & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, laid down
the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. It reads thus:-
"55. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are:
a. Accused person must not be a member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
b. Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe;
c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate
such a person; and
d. Accused must do so at any place within public
view." (Emphasis supplied)
12. Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for
the intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is
2026:KER:7596
that the person who is subjected to is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words,
the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on
the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult
or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a
member of the community.
xxxxxxxx
15. Further, for an offence to be made out under
Section 3(1)(r), merely abusing a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the
same time, saying caste name would also not constitute
an offence.
16. In other words, to constitute an offence under
Section 3(1)(r) it would be necessary that the accused
abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe "by the caste name" in any place within public view.
Thus, the allegations must reveal that abuses were laced
with caste name, or the caste name had been hurled as
an abuse.
17. What appears from the aforesaid is the element of
humiliation is present in Section 3(1)(r) as well. It has to
be gathered from the intentional insult towards the caste,
and the content. The content under Section 3(1)(r) are
the abuses hurled at a person belonging to a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. However, the intent with
2026:KER:7596
which the abuses were hurled must be found to be
denigrating towards the caste, resulting into a feeling of
caste-based humiliation."
15. The legal position as discernible from the
decision of the Apex Court is the law settled on the matter
in issue. Keeping the legal position in mind, on reading
the prosecution allegation, it is well discernible that
admittedly, there were financial transactions in between
the appellant/accused and the defacto complainant.
Dishonour of two cheques alleged to be issued by the
defacto complainant to the appellant/accused for
Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, during the last week of
October, 2025 is perceivable from the materials available.
Be it so, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant is having force in the present case where
case and counter case have been registered alleging overt
acts to be gathered from the FIS and other records in
2026:KER:7596
both crimes. In as much as case and counter case are
concerned, investigation and trial to be proceeded
simultaneously to find which case is true. Thus indubitably
both crimes would require effective investigation to see
the truth of the contra allegations. If so, prima facie the
allegations in this crime are not fully free from doubts
particularly when the occurrence was after three weeks
from the date of dishonour of cheques issued by the
defacto complainant in favour of the appellant. In such a
case, grant of anticipatory bail is not prohibited under
Section 18A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Therefore, this
appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order
impugned is set aside. The appellant/accused is granted
bail on the following conditions:-
2026:KER:7596
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 3.00 p.m. for two days. In
the event of the arrest of the appellant/accused,
he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court
on the date of arrest itself.
ii) The appellant/accused shall be released on bail on
he 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 co-
operate with the investigation and shall be
available for interrogation as and when directed 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
2026:KER:7596
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
JUDGE
DCS
2026:KER:7596
APPENDIX OF CRL.A NO. 29 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
2570/2025 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE OP CARD ISSUED FROM
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KESAVAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.2571/2025 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE
STATION.
