Bail under SC/ST (POA) Act mandates notice to the victim's dependents, ensuring their participation in bail proceedings is essential for justice.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

Common order in Crl.M.P.Nos.4/2026 (filed by accused Nos.1 and 4), 10/2026 (filed by accused No.9), 11/2026 (filed by accused No.8), 13/2026 (filed by accused No.7) and 15/2026 (filed by accused Nos.2, 3 and 5), dated 31.01.2026, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018’ for short), at the instance of the prosecution. The above accused persons are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 8 in this appeal. The respondent No.9 is the brother of the deceased (victim) who has been impleaded in this appeal in view of the mandate of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 8, and the learned counsel for respondent No.9 in detail. Perused the case diary and the decisions placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In this matter, crime was registered based on an information received from the police outpost attached to the District Hospital, Palakkad, at about 19.40 hours on 17.12.2025, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNS , 2023’ for short). During investigation, it has been revealed that the accused persons, at about 19.40 hours on 17.12.2025, brutally attacked one Ram Narayan Bhagel, a 40 year old native of Jharkhand, with common intention and concert to do away him, as part of mob lynching, and thereby the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 103 (2) of , 2023 as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.

4. On reading the common order, it is discernible that accused Nos.1 to 5 were granted regular bail after completion of their custody for a period of 43 days. Accused No.7 was granted regular bail after completion of 38 days of custody. Accused No.8 was granted regular bail after completion of 35 days of custody and accused No.9 was granted regular bail after completion of 25 days of judicial custody. The reasons for granting regular bail are stated in paragraph Nos.10 and 13 of the common order, which read as under:

“10. From the available records, it can be very well deciphered that a poor unemployed North Indian citizen who arrived in Kerala in search of his fortune was brutally subjected to mob lynching resulting his death. It is obvious that the above incident is exceptional but heart wrenching and shocking. However, it is equally important to note that the remand is not a punishment. The suspect / accused were arrested and they were kept in judicial custody for the purpose of investigation. Here in this case, the petitioners fully co-operated with the investigation. It is true that as the alleged incident took place in the broad day light in the presence of native people, obviously, the witnesses might have strong acquaintance with the petitioners. However, considering the fact that the statement U/s. 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita of the witnesses were recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate, there is no point in arguing that these witnesses would be won over by the petitioners at stage of the investigation. For the said reason, it is inappropriate to detain the petitioners indefinitely.

11. xxxxx

12 xxxxx

13. Prima-facie, it is manifested that it is a case of mob lynching. It is true that Section 103 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita would attract in this case. However, even considering the gravity of the shocking i