Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P, J
DHANESH VIJAYAN @ KANNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1511 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.1350/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AKHIL VIJAY
For the Respondents: RENJIT GEORGE (SR.PP)
Anticipatory bail granted as allegations insufficient to invoke SC/ST Act provisions considering absence of criminal intent towards complainant's SC status.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A - Criminal appeal challenging anticipatory bail rejection - The appellant, accused of multiple offences, claimed innocence, arguing that the allegations were fabricated and linked to a personal dispute. - After observing the allegations, the court deemed no custodial interrogation was necessary and acknowledged the absence of criminal antecedents. - (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Interpretation and application of the SC/ST Act - The court highlighted that the provisions could not be invoked if the accused did not commit the offence targeting the victim’s SC status. - (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal is against a denial of anticipatory bail following allegations of physical assault and verbal abuse by the appellant towards a de facto complainant, stemming from a personal dispute regarding housing.
Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations insufficient to deny bail, stating that the SC/ST Act’s strict liability was not applicable here. Priors of the accused were favorable towards bail.
Issues: The central issues revolved around whether the SC/ST Act was properly invoked and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that even accepting the allegations, there was insufficient basis to suggest the appellant’s conduct was towards the SC status of the de facto complainant, echoing the legal interpretation of the SC/ST Act’s applicability.
Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted under specific conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal challenges the denial of anticipatory bail under the sc/st act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims of innocence and entitlement to bail based on the personal dispute context. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. interpretation of sc/st act's applicability to the case. (Para 6) |
| 4. outcome of the appeal with bail granting conditions. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , (SC/ST Act), challenging the order dated 01-08-2025 in Crl.M.C No.1045/2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam, through which an application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant was dismissed by that Court.
2. The appellant is the accused in Crime No.1350/2025 of Pala Police Station, Kottayam district, registered for the offences under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 74 and 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ), and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The allegation leading to the registration of the crime is that on 02-07-2025 at about 8.30 P.M, while the de facto complainant had arrived at the auto stand in front of Urban Bank, near the old Pala Bus Stand, she had questioned the accused about spreading rumours about her. Then the appellant/accused had verbally abused her and assaulted her by slapping her on her right cheek and shoulder and hitting her on her back and pushing her down into a puddle of muddy water. It is alleged that the appellant/accused again hit the de facto complainant when she tried to get up, and thereby the appellant/accused had committed the offences alleged against him.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that the appellant/accused is absolutely innocent of all the allegations leveled against him. It is submitted that the de facto complainant was living in a house rented out from a senior citizen, who happened to be a relative of the appellant/accused. It is submitted that there were several issues in which the de facto complainant was involved, as set out in paragraph No.4 of the appeal, and the appellant/accused had only intervened to request the de facto complainant to vacate the house as requested by his elderly relative. It is submitted that even at the time when the appellant/accused had intervened by requesting the de facto complainant to vacate the house, the de facto complainant had rebuked him and had threatened him, stating that he will be made an accused in a criminal case. It is submitted that on 02-07-2025, when the appellant/accused was standing near the old Pala Bus Station, the de facto complainant, who was in an inebriated condition, had approached the appellant/accused and started abusing him, and when the appellant/accused had objected, she removed one of her slippers and attempted to slap the appellant/accused with it. It is submitted that because the de facto complainant was in an inebriated state, she had fallen down in a muddy puddle, and thereafter a false case has been registered against the appellant/accused stating that the appellant/accused had attacked the de facto complainant.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the investigation into the matter is only progressing. It is also pointed out that on the last posting date, the de facto complainant had appeared in person before this Court and pointed out that she was forcefully evicted from the house taken out on rent from the relative of the appellant/accused. It is submitted that on enquries, it is learned that the parents of the de facto complainant are still residing in the same house. It is submitted that the de facto complainant is accused in Crime No.155/2025 of Pallickathodu Police Station, Kottayam district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 196(b), 115(2), 126(2) and 324(2) of BNS , and the case is now pending as C.C.No.221/2025 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally.
6. Having heard the
