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
(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.



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 b....
Section 18 SC/ST Act bars pre-arrest bail if prima facie offence made out; here, caste-motivated confinement, beating of minor scheduled caste victim for touching house constitutes such offence.
The court ruled that allegations under the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act require a direct link to the victim's caste status, which was not established in this....
The SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail when prima facie offences are established, emphasizing the protection of individuals from caste-based discrimination.
A definitive finding on prima facie evidence is mandatory for rejecting anticipatory bail in cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act.
The bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act does not apply if the complaint fails to establish a prima facie case, allowing for anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act can be granted when the allegations do not establish a prima facie case within public view.
Bar will not apply where the complaint does not make out “a prima facie case” for the applicability of the provisions of the Act. A statutory exclusion of the right to access remedies for bail is con....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.