The court confirmed that anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be denied when prima facie evidence suggests caste-based discrimination.

JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , (‘the Act’ for short). The challenge in this appeal is to the common order dated 19.07.2024 in Crl.M.C Nos.2088/2024 and 2096/2024 passed by the Court of the Special Judge for the trial of the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ernakulam.

2. The appellants are accused Nos. 1and 2 in Crime No.1163/2024 of Aluva East Police Station. 2024:KER:66767 Appellant in Crl.A.No.1528 of 2024 is accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.1384 of 2024. They are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3 (2)(va) of the Act.

3. The prosecution case: The victim/respondent No.2 to belongs to a SC Community. The appellants are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The victim/respondent No.2 is an auto-rickshaw driver by profession. On 05.07.2024 at 1.30 a.m, some passengers hired the victim‘s auto-rickshaw. Accused No.1 attempted to secure the passengers. He obstructed the victim from plying the auto rickshaw. Accused No.1 drove his auto-rickshaw close to the victim. The victim prevented him. Accused No.1 voluntarily caused hurt to

2024:KER:66767 him by hitting against his left eye. During the course of the incident, the side curtain of the auto-rickshaw driven by accused No.1 was damaged. Accused No.1 informed the incident to accused No.2, the owner of the vehicle. Later, at 02.00 a.m., accused No.2 came to the scene. The victim was sleeping in his auto-rickshaw. Accused No.1 again assaulted the victim. Accused No.2 voluntarily caused grevious hurt to him by means of an iron rod. He also kicked the victim.

4. The victim appeared in person. He submitted that if the appellants/accused are granted anticipatory bail, it would affect his safety and security. He further stated that even after the incident, on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, the appellants/accused threatened him. 2024:KER:66767

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that the bail plea is hit by Section 18 of the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused submits that the materials placed before the Court are not sufficient to attract the offences under the Act. The learned counsel for accused No.1 submitted that there is no allegation that accused No.1 used any weapon.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.2 has criminal antecedents. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the appellants/accused is required.

8. I have gone through the Case Diary. The prosecution alleges that the accused assaulted the victim for the reason that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste

2024:KER:66767 Community. On a persual of the materials placed before the Court, I hold that the prosecution could prima facie establish the offence under Section 3 (2)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the bail plea of the appellants/accused in respect of (2)(va) of the Act is barred under Section 18 of the Act.

9. The prosecution also alleges offence under Section 118(1) of the BNS. The weapon allegedly used is an iron rod. The prosecution specifically alleges that the criminal acts were done in furtherance of their common intention. The weapon used has not been recovered. 10. Having considered the materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that the appellants/accused are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Therefore, their bail

2024:KER:66767 plea stands rejected. The common order impugned stands confirmed.

11. It is legally permissible for this Court to direct the accused to surrender before the Jurisdictional Court while rejecting a prayer for anticipatory bail {See: Nathu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (MANU/SC/0360/2021) : [2021 (3) KLT Online 1113 (SC)] and Rahul v. State of Kerala [ILR 2021 (4) Ke