The court granted anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the nature of the allegations and the appellant's prior bailable offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) challenging an order dated 05-03-2025 in Crl. M.C. No. 247/2025 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, dismissing an application filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.9/2025 of Kunnamangalam Police Station. The allegation against the appellant is that, on 30-12-2024, at about 09.00 P.M, he had assaulted the 2^nd respondent herein with a steel bangle and had also abused him by referring to his caste name. This offence is stated to be committed in a public place.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is totally innocent of the allegations leveled against him. It is submitted that the appellant is accused no.1 in the case, and the 2^nd accused in the case and his relatives had some verbal altercation with the de facto complainant (2^nd respondent herein) on the previous day of the alleged incident. It is submitted that on the next day, the de facto complainant and his friends trespassed into the house of the 2^nd accused and assaulted him with dangerous weapons and caused injury to him. It is submitted that seeing the said attack, the appellant herein had intervened, and a push and pull occurred, and as a result of the same, the de facto complainant might have fallen down and sustained some minor injury. It is submitted that the appellant is absolutely innocent of the allegations leveled against him, and at any rate, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted that, prima facie, no offence under the SC/ST Act has been committed by the appellant, and therefore, the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. It is submitted that the investigation conducted so far reveals that the appellant had committed the offence under the SC/ST Act since the occurrence was in a public Place. It is submitted that the de facto complainant/victim had suffered injuries on the left eyebrow and has a lacerated wound on the left eyelid. It is submitted that the appellant has criminal antecedents, and he is also an accused in Crime No.392/2023 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, which has been registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which is now pending as C.C. No.285/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. It is submitted that the weapon used is allegedly a steel bangle and the recovery of the weapon is absolutely essential. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation is thus necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that notice has been served to the 2^nd respondent through the Station House O Kunnamangalam Police Station.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the nature of allegations raised against the appellant, I am of the view that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions. The criminal antecedent reported against the appellant relate to bailable offences. The question as to whether the appellant had actually committed any offence under the SC/ST Act in a public place is a matter to be ascertained. Recovery for the purposes of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be effected even if the appellant is on anticipatory bail. The allegations do not compel this Court to hold that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. Taking all these facts cumulatively into consideration, I am of the view that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. It is made clear that the appellant shall be deemed to be in custody