The doctrine of merger does not bar subsequent bail applications in SC/ST (POA) Act cases based on changed circumstances, necessitating a merits-based evaluation by the Special Court.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The sole accused in Crime No.22 of 2023 of Kollam East Police Station, has filed this appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (as amended), 2018 ('SC/ST(POA) Act', for short) challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.121/2025 whereby the learned Special Court under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Kottarakkara, dismissed the regular bail application filed by the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Senior Public Prosecutor in detail. Although notice was served upon the 3^rd respondent, she did not turn up. Perused the impugned order.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 3 76 , 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC’ for short) as well as under Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, who doesn’t belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, had taken the deceased, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste community, at 4.30 p.m on 29.12.2022 to Kollam beach and he had committed rape on her. Thereafter he murdered the daughter of the defacto complainant by causing asphyxia. Besides that the accused robbed Rs.2,500/- and mobile phone of the victim also from her bag.

4. While seeking interference in the order impugned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the order of the learned Special Judge dismissing the second bail application filed by the appellant on the ground of dismissal of Crl.Appeal No.124/2025 earlier filed, challenging dismissal of the earlier bail application as per order dated 11.02.2025, is not justifiable. The learned Special Judge ought to have considered the same on merits and passed an appropriate order in accordance with law. He also argued that in consideration of the custody of the appellant from 05.01.2023 and the delay in trial, the appellant may be released on bail.

5. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor strongly opposed interference in the order impugned and submitted that the accused could not be released on bail when considering the manner in which he had committed the offence. According to him, the accused has involvement in another case, viz., Crime No.2040/2019 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 AB of IPC and (b), 4(2), 5(m)(n) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 ('POCSO Act’ for short) and the victim therein is none other than the sister of the accused. Therefore, the release of the petitioner in this case cannot be considered and he doesn’t deserve bail. Moreover, the plight of the sister, who is the victim in Crime No.2040/2019, would also be in peril if he would be released on bail.

6. On perusal of the prosecution records, it is well discernible that the accused, who is not a member of the SC/ST community, had taken the daughter of the defacto complainant to Kollam beach at 4.30 p.m at 29.12.2022 and thereafter he sexually molested her in a house. Thereafter the accused murdered the daughter of the defacto complainant at the kitchen of the house, by closing her nose and mouth, and thereby causing asphyxia to avoid hue and cry of the victim. Thereafter the dead body was abandoned by the accused. Therefore, the allegations are very serious, particularly, the manner in which the murder had been committed is significant. It is true that the appellant has been in custody from 05.01.2023. It is relevant to note that the accused alleged to have sexually molested his own si