Court emphasizes that serious allegations supported by prima facie evidence against the accused necessitate denial of bail to protect the investigation and the victim.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Order dated 11.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2026 on the files of the Special Court for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST (POA) Act”, for short) cases, Pathanamthitta, arising out of crime No.38/2026 of Chittur Police Station, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act at the instance of the sole accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor on 27.02.2026. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant records placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. On 26.02.2026, the defacto complainant appeared in person and zealously opposed grant of regular bail to the appellant on the submission that she had bitter lascivious experience from this appellant, even prior to this occurrence, and that one Senior Officer had also filed complaint against the appellant before the Internal Committee for sexual abuse. Apart from that, another staff member also suffered similarly.

4. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short) as well as under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act by the accused. The prosecution case is that, the accused, who has been working as the Deputy Range Officer, Kochukoickal Forest Station, and who is not a member of either the scheduled caste or the scheduled tribe community, sexually assaulted the defacto complainant, a member of the scheduled caste community, who has been working as a Beat Forest Officer at the office of the Deputy Range Officer, Kochukoickal, at about 13.30 hours on 04.02.2026 at the mess hall of the said office. The specific allegation is that, the accused caught hold of the defacto complainant and sexually abused her.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and that the allegations have been made to disarm him from performing his duties, under him, where the defacto complainant has been working as a Beat Forest Officer. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant raised these allegations since she has been reluctant to do her works under the appellant as directed by him. Thus, raising plea of innocence, highlighting the custody of the appellant from 05.02.2026 and the progress of the investigation, the learned counsel for the appellant pressed for grant of regular bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the appellant, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and the premature stage of the investigation. He further submitted that premature release of the appellant would be fatal to the investigation and the same also would go against the victim, since he has been working in a higher position as Deputy Range Forest Officer, where the victim also has been working.

7. On perusal of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant as on 04.02.2026, at about 16.30 hours, it is stated that the defacto complainant has been working as a Beat Forest Officer. While performing her duties at the office of the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Kochukoickal, on 04.02.2026, she was invited by one Amina madam to have lunch at the mess. Since there was no power supply during the relevant time, two Beat Forest Officers were taking food at the sit-out. Amina madam was engaged in serving food. The defacto complainant engaged in supplying curries. At this juncture, the accused, Sri.K.A.Ashokan (Deputy Range Forest Officer), came to the mess and without attempting to have the food, he approached her and caught hold of her pr