Regular bail granted in atrocity case considering custody period and allegation nature, despite absconding history, imposing conditions to prevent evasion and tampering.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the order rejecting the appellant’s application for a grant of regular bail. Appellant was the accused in S.C. No.825 of 2018 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad.

2. The prosecution alleged that, on 27.09.2017, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with the intention of causing hurt with a sharp weapon, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the second respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The appellant is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with an intention to cause hurt and is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , apart from Section 3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Though the crime is of the year 2017, the appellant remained aloof from the process of law for several years, and it is only in September 2025 that he was arrested.

5. The appellant is alleged to have absconded after committing the offence. However, according to the appellant, he had secured a job abroad, and because of the said employment, he could not appear before the trial court.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the appellant was arrested pursuant to a lookout circular issued since he was evading the process of law. It was also submitted that the appellant is involved in two other crimes as well.

7. Appellant is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and caused hurt. Though the appellant is involved in two other crimes, considering the period of custody already undergone by the appellant from 23.09.2025, and bearing in mind the nature of allegations, I am of the view that further custody is not essential. However, to prevent the accused from further evading the process of law, appropriate conditions can be imposed.

8. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Appellant shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Appellant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

(d) Appellant shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Appellant shall not leave Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.