A prima facie case must be established for denial of bail under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, considering counter-allegations.

JUDGMENT

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Sri. Renjith Lal, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 2570/2025 of Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. Today the defacto complainant also appeared in person and he also was heard.

4. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 118(1), 115(2), 296(b) & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ' BNS ', hereinafter) as well as under Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST (PoA) Act' hereinafter), by the appellant/accused.

5. The prosecution case is that, the appellant/ accused, who does not belong to either the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe community and verbally abused and threatened him at 8.15 pm on 20.11.2025. According to the prosecution, thereafter, the appellant/accused manhandled the defacto complainant by using an iron rod. That apart, the appellant/accused beat on the head of the defacto complainant by using a bamboo stick; and thereby, he sustained injuries. The further allegation is that the appellant/accused called the caste name of the defacto complainant within public view and thereby, abused him within public.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the FIS itself, it could be seen that there were financial transactions in between the defacto complainant and the appellant/accused and in para No. 3 of the appeal memorandum, the appellant/accused specifically contended as under:-

“3. The allegation put forwarded by the de facto complainant is false and concocted story. The de facto complainant is the real aggressor. He after borrowing an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the appellant defrauded and cheated him. When the appellant constantly demanded the amount, the de facto complainant issued him two cheques bearing No. 470028 and 556449 in the account maintained by him at State Bank of India, Kallambalam Branch dated 21.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively.”

7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, after dishonour of the two cheques issued by the defacto complainant in favour of the appellant/accused, when the appellant/accused called the defacto complainant demanding the money, as directed by the defacto complainant, he reached at Kilimanoor on 20.11.2025 and there occurred a scuffle, whereby, the appellant/accused also sustained serious injuries and he underwent treatment. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the appellant placed O.P. Ticket issued from Community Health Centre, Kesavapuram showing that he had approached the doctor with history of trauma head and he was advised to have CT scan examination and X- Ray examination of spine, despite prescribing medicines. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the defacto complainant came to know about the dishonour of two cheques issued by him for Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- each), on 21.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, a false case has been foisted against the appellant/accused to avoid repayment of the said sum and according to him, as against the defacto complainant also crime was registered at Kilimanoor Police Station as Crime No. 2571/2025 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 118(1), 115(2) of the BNS , 2023. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the en