SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 878

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.K.R.Vinod, Smt.M.S.Letha, Shri.Ismail Shahar, Smt.Bhavana Sajan
For the Respondent: Sr.Public Prosecutor Sri.Vipin Narayan, Advs. Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, Smt.Gopika Anil

The statutory bar against anticipatory bail under the special legislation applies if a prima facie case exists. Knowledge of a victim's caste can be legally presumed based on acquaintance, and an incident occurring in the presence of others is considered to have taken place within public view.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 18 - Anticipatory Bail - Bar of - When prima facie offences are made out, grant of anticipatory bail is prohibited. (Para 11)

(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 8(c) - Presumption of knowledge - Court shall presume that accused was aware of caste identity of victim if they were known to each other, unless contrary is proved. (Paras 10, 11)

(C) Anticipatory Bail - Public View - For offences of abuse in public view, if abuse occurs in presence of third parties in a private place, such location is deemed to be a place within public view. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought pre-arrest bail after being accused of assaulting a member of a marginalized community and using caste-based slurs during a public event near a temple. The appellant claimed ignorance of the victim's caste and argued the occurrence did not take place in public view. The prosecution opposed the plea, citing medical evidence of injuries, including fractures, and witness statements.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the medical records supported the allegations of physical assault. It was noted that the occurrence happened during a crowded festival, making it a place within public view. The court also invoked the presumption regarding the knowledge of the victim's caste identity, as the parties were from the same locality and were familiar with each other, dismissing the appellant's contention of lack of awareness.

Issues: Whether the alleged offences under the special legislation regarding atrocitites were prima facie established, thereby triggering the statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail, and whether the location of the incident constituted a 'public view'.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prima facie evidence supports allegations of caste-based abuse and physical assault, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail applies. The court held that knowledge of a victim's caste can be presumed under the relevant provisions when parties share a residential area, and private premises can qualify as a place within 'public view' if the incident occurs in the presence of third parties.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top