Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed an appeal by two accused seeking pre-arrest bail in a case alleging caste-linked abuse and assault and directed them to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith, failing which police may arrest them. The prosecution case was that the complainant and his companions were followed, abused with obscene words, threatened, attacked with an iron rod and other acts, and the complainant’s autorickshaw was damaged. The Court clarified that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act equally applies to the corresponding pre-arrest bail provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The criminal appeal arose from an order declining anticipatory bail to certain accused persons in a crime registered by the Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The appellants were originally arrayed as accused in a case alleging commission of multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018.

Also Read: High Court Cannot Direct Police To Ensure Section 41A CrPC Compliance While Refusing To Quash FIR; Supreme Court

The prosecution case, as reflected in the First Information Statement, alleged that an incident occurred at about 10.45 p.m. on 28 September 2025 at Kochukunnumukku, during which the accused persons allegedly abused the defacto complainant using obscene language, issued threats, and assaulted him and others accompanying him. It was alleged that one of the accused attempted to strike the defacto complainant on the head with an iron rod, while another stamped on his thigh. The prosecution further alleged that other accused persons attacked the accompanying individuals and caused damage to an autorickshaw owned by the defacto complainant.

The appellants contended that they were innocent, that the incident occurred during Onam celebrations, and that no offence under the SC/ST Act was attracted. The State opposed the plea, relying on the First Information Statement and the wound certificate, and contended that the statutory bar against anticipatory bail applied.

The Court examined the records produced by the prosecution, including the First Information Statement and the wound certificate of the injured. On the scope of scrutiny at the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court observed that “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.”

While considering the medical material, the Court recorded 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” and that medical advice for further examination and surgical consultation had been issued.

On the statutory bar, the Court stated that “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 and the bar would apply when the prosecution materials prima facie show commission of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.”

The Court clarified the extent of the statutory bar by observing 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.”

On the facts of the case, the Court recorded that the defacto complainant was a known person to the accused and that “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.”

The Court also took note of the allegation of a non-bailable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and stated that “in such a case, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the same would impede the investigation.”

Also Read: Section 188 CrPC Sanction Not Needed For Taking Cognizance Of An Overseas Offence, But Required Before Trial Begins :Kerala High Court

The Court directed that “this appeal stands dismissed, confirming the order of the Special Court. The appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith failing which the Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest the appellants/accused to proceed with the investigation.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. K.R. Rajkumar, Advocate; Shri. Jagadeesh Lakshman, Advocate; Sri. R.K. Rakesh, Advocate; Smt. Sreelakshmi P.S., Advocate; Smt. Nandida Sebastian, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. Noushad K.A., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Athul P. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:1998
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2250 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen