IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sajith S/o. Babu Unnithan - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A No. 389 Of 2026
Decided On : 10-06-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of charges and prosecution allegations under bns and sc/st act. (Para 1) |
| 2. evidentiary assessment of public view requirement and presumption of knowledge under section 8(c). (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in Crime No.268/2026 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam, seeking the following prayer:
“To set aside Annexure A3 order and grant an order of pre-arrest bail in F.I.R.No.268/2026 of Sooranadu Police Station, directing the Investigating Officer therein to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who is the victim.
3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’ hereinafter) and under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ hereinafter), by the appellant/accused.
4. The prosecution case is that, at about 9.00 p.m. on 15.02.2026, the appellant/accused who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, abused the de facto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, by calling his caste name, while he was standing in front of Thavanoorkavu Temple at Ambalathumbhagom in Poruvazhy Village, while watching the festival program. Thereafter, the appellant/accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant in front of SBI and abused him by using filthy words and beat on his forehead and left ear by using an iron bangle. Then, the appellant/accused kicked on the chest of the de facto complainant and when the de facto complainant fell down, the appellant/accused kicked and pressed on his right leg causing fracture on the right great toe and thereby, committed the above offences.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that, in this case, apart from the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, all other offences are bailable and, insofar as the offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are concerned, going by the FIS given by the de facto complainant two days after the occurrence, viz., on 17.02.2026 (the date of occurrence being 15.02.2026), any personal knowledge regarding the caste of the de facto complainant could be found prima facie and therefore, the said offences are not made out prima facie. According to the learned counsel, in the statement of the de facto complainant, the appellant/accused was a resident of Ambalathumbhagom also is incorrect and that would show that the caste identity of the de facto complainant was not known to the appellant/accused and therefore, none of the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out prima facie and in such view of the matter, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, has no application in the present case. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant/accused after upsetting the order impugned.
6. The de facto complainant appeared through counsel and filed a written objection. Paragraph Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the objection are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:
“2. It is submitted that, on 15.02.2026 while watching the festival in front of the Thavanoorkavu Temple, at about 9 pm, I was abused by the accused, who called me by my caste name in a filthy manner, further towards the incident, I was wrongfully restrained by the accused in front of SBI Bank Sasthamnada, wherein the appellant abused me using filthy words, and brutally assaulted me in front of several persons including my own sister.
3. The allegations raised by the appellant are herein denied, and are even false and misleading, the intend of which being to eva
The court held that when a prima facie case is made out for offenses under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, the statutory bar under Section 18 precludes the granting of anticipatory bail, and knowledge....
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.
Anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act where prima facie offenses are established.
Anticipatory bail under SC/ST (POA) Act denied when evidence supports allegations of caste-based abuse.
Anticipatory bail under SC/ST (POA) Act denied when evidence supports allegations of caste-based abuse.
A statutory bar on anticipatory bail is triggered once a prima facie case under the special anti-atrocity legislation is established. A place constitutes 'within public view' if the act of humiliatio....
The court reaffirmed that when prima facie evidence under the SC/ST (POA) Act is established, bail is barred under Section 18.
The burden on the prosecution to establish that the accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe does not necessarily require the mention of the accused's caste in the FIR. The inte....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.