Bail can be granted even in serious offences if conditions can prevent tampering and ensure investigation integrity.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'), challenging an order dated 08-08-2025 in Crl. M.P. No.961/2025 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad, through which an application filed by the appellant for regular bail in connection with Crime No.688/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad was rejected by that court. Crime No.688/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station is one registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 351 (2), 140 (3) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ) along with Section 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.

2. The first appellant is the son-in-law of the 2^nd appellant. The allegation is that at about 1.30 a.m. on 29-07-2025, the appellants contacted the de facto complainant through the wife of the 1^st appellant, since they had a grudge against him. Allegedly, the wife of the 1^st appellant was having a relationship with the de facto complainant. Following the phone call, the de- facto complainant proceeded to meet the wife of the 1st appellant, and when the de facto complainant reached a place called Kadambu at about 1.30 a.m., the appellants had knocked him down using their Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KL-55R-1935 and thereafter, they had forced him to get into the jeep and had severely manhandled him and had threatened to kill him. It is alleged that the de facto complainant suffered serious injuries to his jaw requiring surgical intervention, and thereby the appellants committed the offences alleged against them.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the de facto complainant was maintaining a relationship with the wife of the 1^st appellant/daughter of the 2nd appellant, and at about 1.00 AM on the day in question, he was found in the house of the daughter of the 2^nd appellant. It is submitted that on seeking the appellants, the de facto complainant attempted to flee from the place on his motorbike, and he fell and sustained injuries. Subsequently, a false case has been registered against the appellants. It is submitted that out of the offences alleged against the appellants, the only non-bailable offence against the appellants is the offence under Section 140 (3) of the BNS , corresponding to Section 3 65 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which relates to an offence of abduction. It is submitted that the offence under Section 117 (2) of the corresponds to Section 3 25 of the IPC, and the same is a bailable offence. It is submitted that the appellants are poor coolie workers. It is submitted that the appellants have absolutely no criminal antecedents. It is pointed out that they have been in custody for the past 27 days, and further detention is not necessary for investigation. It is submitted that the appellants will not meddle with the investigation and will co-operate with the investigation in every manner, and further detention of the appellants in custody is not necessary for the case.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant vehemently oppose the grant of bail to the appellants. The seriousness of the offence committed by the appellants is pointed out. Sri. K. Muhammed Salahudheen, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, has placed before me certain photographs and the medical report of the de facto complainant to show the seriousness of the injury suffered by the de facto complainant as a result of the attack by the appellants. It is submitted that, out of sheer luck