The validity of charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act hinges on actions occurring in public view, with verbal abuse being actionable if witnessed by third parties.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Sri.Baby K.P., who is the sole accused in Crime No.794/2025 of Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam, has filed this criminal appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST POA Act, 2018' for short], challenging order dated 09.01.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.2402/2025 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Ernakulam, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge, the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘defacto complainant’, hereafter.

4. In a nutshell, the allegation of the prosecution is that, the accused, who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, on knowing the said fact and also noticing that, a complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community, against the accused alleging that the accused had been flowing waste water through the property of one Thresiamma to the residence of the defacto complainant, got infuriated and in consequence thereof at about 06.30 p.m. on 26.07.2025, the defacto complainant was alerted by his wife stating that somebody from the road calling abusive words by calling caste name of the defacto complainant and also uttering that, the defacto complainant has been in the habit of raising unnecessary complaints before the Police and later it was heard by the defacto complainant that it was the accused who did the overt acts. In the FIS itself, it was stated that the occurrence was witnessed by one George and his wife Thresiamma, who were present at the place of occurrence and the abusive words were uttered on the public road, abutting the house of the defacto complainant. There is further allegation that, again at about 07.00 a.m. on 27.07.2025, the accused repeated the overt acts and thereby abused and ashamed the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community within public view and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.

5. The learned counsel for the accused raised multifold contentions to unsustain the verdict of the Special Court, while pressing for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, after setting aside the order impugned. According to the learned counsel for the accused, the entire case is foisted because of rivalry and according to him, the accused lodged complaint against the defacto complainant initially and thereafter the defacto complainant lodged complaint alleging flowing of waste water through the property of another to the house of the defacto complainant by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, since such a civil dispute has been pending, this case was foisted with a view to put the accused behind the bars alleging commission of non-bailable offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

6. Apart from contending that, this case arose out of a civil dispute, the learned counsel for the accused also submitted that, going by the prosecution records, no third p