Prolonged pre-trial incarceration may warrant bail despite serious allegations if trial delays are significant.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

Crl.A.No.835/2025 has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), challenging the order dated 28-04-2025 in Crl.M.P No.231/2025 in S.C.No.1253/2021 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Nedumangad, denying regular bail to the appellant, who is the 2^nd accused in the case.

2. Crl.A.No.1542/2025 has been filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, challenging the order dated 15-07-2025 in Crl.M.P No.460/2025 in S.C.No.1253/2021 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Nedumangad, denying regular bail to the appellant, who is the 1^st accused in the case.

3. SC No.1253/2021 arises from Crime No.1167/2021 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district.

4. The allegation in brief is the following:

The 1^st accused (appellant in Crl.A.No.1542/2025) was arrested in connection with Crime No.492/2021 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, alleging commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The 1^st accused, the 2^nd accused (appellant in Crl.A.No.835/2025) and one Sambath (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) were friends, and the deceased allegedly spread rumours that the 1^st accused got arrested owing to certain information given by the 2^nd accused. However, both the accused killed Sambath out of the belief that it was Sambath who had actually given information leading to the arrest of the 1^st accused in connection with Crime No.492/2021 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these cases would submit that the appellants have been in custody for four years and two and a half months. It is submitted that the 2^nd accused had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of this Court (Annexure-A4 in Crl.A.No.835/2025), and the Supreme Court by Annexure-A5 order dated 06-11-2023 had permitted the appellant/2^nd accused to application for bail if the trial of the case gets protracted. It is submitted that though the final report was filed and the trial was also scheduled, the Trial Court could not commence the proceedings on account of the fact that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has not been received so far. It is submitted that notwithstanding the earlier orders of the Trial Court and of this Court rejecting the bail applications of the appellants, the appellants may be granted bail on the ground of long incarceration.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the mother of the deceased vehemently oppose the grant of bail. It is pointed out that on several occasions, the Trial Court as well as this Court had rejected the bail applications filed by the appellants, specifically noticing the brutal nature of the crime committed by the appellants. It is submitted that the deceased had suffered 93 antemortem injuries. It is pointed out that both appellants have criminal antecedents, and it was after noticing these facts that both the Trial Court and this Court had rejected the earlier bail applications filed by the appellants. It is submitted that in Annexure-A4 order, produced along with Crl.A.No.835/2025, this Court had observed that this is a fit case where the accused must face trial in custody. It is submitted that this Court, while considering the bail application of the 1^st accused, had observed in the order dated 20-06-2022 in B.A.No.1456/2022 that the brutal nature of the offence committed by th