SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J.
Smitha W/o Joby Kurian – Petitioners 
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor and Ors. – Respondents
CRL.A No. 456 of 2025
Decided On : 11-04-2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.S.Madhusoodanan, M.M.Vinod Kumar, P.K.Rakesh Kumar, K.S.Mizver, M.J.Kirankumar
For the Respondent: Smt.Sheeba Thomas, PP

IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that awareness of the informant's caste is essential for the applicability of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, affecting the grant of pre-arrest bail.

Headnote:

(A) Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 14A, 18, 18A, 3(2)(va), 3(2)(s) - Pre-arrest bail application - Dismissal of bail application by trial court upheld for one appellant due to grievous injuries sustained by informant, while bail granted to others - Court found prima facie doubt regarding applicability of the Act due to lack of awareness of informant's caste - The incident arose from civil disputes over a restaurant lease. (Paras 1 , 12 , 14 )

Facts of the case:

The appeal was filed by accused persons seeking pre-arrest bail after their application was dismissed by the trial court. The informant sustained grievous injuries during a dispute related to a restaurant lease, leading to counter allegations. (Paras 1 , 9 )

Findings of Court:

The court found that the injuries sustained by the informant were serious, and the bar under the Act was not applicable to all appellants, allowing bail for some while denying it for one. (Paras 12 , 14 )

Issues: The main issues included whether the bar under the Act applied and the appropriateness of granting pre-arrest bail in light of the injuries sustained by the informant. (Paras 12 , 14 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the awareness of the informant's caste was crucial for the applicability of the Act, and the serious nature of the injuries warranted the denial of bail for one appellant while allowing it for others. (Paras 12 , 14 )

Result: The appeal is partly allowed; bail granted to two appellants with conditions, while the request for the third appellant is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) has been filed by the petitioners/accused nos.1, 2 & 6 (A1, A2 & A6) in crime no.200/2025, Nedumkandam police station, aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition under Section 482, BNSS, namely, Crl.M.C. No.128/2025, on the file of the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/A1, A2 & A6 that the bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act will not be attracted as the appellants were unaware that the 3rd respondent(R3)/informant/injured is a member of the Scheduled Caste community as her father is a Christian and as she is married to a Christian. The present crime is the counter case of crime no.199/2025, Nedumkandam police station, in which the 1st appellant/A1 herein is the informant/injured. The said crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 269(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 75(1)(iv), 79 and 3(5) BNS. There were civil disputes relating to the resort where the incident took place. It was in the said background the incident took place. Hence, relying on the dictum in XXXX v. State of Kerala , 2022 KHC 1001 , the learned counsel for the appellants canvassed for a pre-arrest bail on the premise that the trial court erred in dismissing the application.

3. The request for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who submitted that R3/informant/injured sustained grievous injuries and has been admitted in the ICU. The investigation has revealed commission of the offence punishable under Section 109(1) BNS also and hence the said section has also been incorporated and investigation is progressing. A3 to A5 in the crime have already been arrested and remanded. Their bail application has been dismissed by the trial court. The arrest of the appellants/A1, A2 & A6 is necessary as custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the weapons used in the crime. The trial court has rightly found that the application for pre-arrest bail is hit by the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act. There is no infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court, argued the prosecutor.

4. Notice was issued to R3/informant/injured which was served on her husband.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Annexure 8 FIR, that is, crime no.200/2025, Nedumkandam police station, has been registered based on the FIS given by R3 herein on 18/02/2025 at 01:00 p.m. As per the FIR, the accused persons are – (1) Smitha, (2) Joby, (3) Younus, (4) Arun, (5) Ambily, (6) Shyam and (7) 15 other identifiable persons. As per the report of the investigating officer filed by the prosecutor, the investigation revealed the commission of other offences including the offence under Section 109(1) BNS and hence the said sections have also been incorporated in the crime and investigation is proceeding. A3-Younus in the FIR is now A2; A2-Joby is A6 and A4 to A6, that is, Arun, Ambily and Shyam are now A3 to A5. Therefore, I will be referring to the appellants as such.

7. In Annexure 8 FIR, R3/informant/injured says that she belongs to the Hindu Pulaya caste. She is acquainted with one Alphonsa Sherly who is conducting a resort by name, Zieon Hills Resorts. She is aware that there is some case pending in the court between the 1st appellant/A1 and the said Alphonsa Sherly. In the evening of 16/02/2025, some incident took place in the resort pursuant to which police from Nedumkandam police station had come to the place by about 09:00 p.m. After the police left, Alphonsa Sherly called her from the courtyard of the resort and hence she along with her children Joyal and Jobin went to the resort. When she had reached the resort, Shajiyannan, owner of a chicken stall, was also present. While she was talking to Alphonsa Sherly, her husband Biju and worker Rojin came in their pick-up van bearing registr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top