Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P.
Ranjith K. S/o Raghavan Nair – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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 2nd 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 2nd accused in the case and his relatives had some verbal altercation with the de facto complainant (2nd respondent herein) on th
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.
The court may grant anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act if the allegations against the accused are not substantiated and prior complaints exist.
Anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations do not prima facie indicate offences under the SC/ST Act.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is established under the SC/ST Act, as per the ruling in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case exists under the SC/ST Act, based on judicial discretion and the specifics of the case.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when custodial interrogation is not necessary, especially in cases involving significant delays in filing allegations under the SC/ST Act.
Anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act can be granted if allegations do not prima facie support the charges.
The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if prima facie evidence of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act exists against the appellants.
Anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations lack direct attribution to the accused, supporting the principle of fairness in justice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article