Anticipatory bail may be granted in SC/ST Act cases if the prima facie case is inadequate.

JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred challenging orders dated

03.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.6957/2025 and Crl.M.P.No.6958/2025 both on the files of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta.

2. The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.1789/2025 is the first accused, while the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.1785/2025 is the fourth accused in Crime No.1689/2025 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The said crime has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 85 , 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 117(2) and 74 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, apart from Section 31 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , and Section 3(2)(v a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘the SC/ST Act’).

3. The Prosecution alleged that on 28/07/2025, the first accused abused the defacto complainant by calling her by her caste name, and as belonging to an inferior caste and also assaulted her by strangulation and pushing her down. While the second accused slapped the complainant repeatedly, the third accused restrained her during the scuffle. The first accused is also alleged to have slapped her on the head, while the fourth accused outraged her modesty and thus the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the third respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant while the fourth accused is his friend. The defacto complainant and her husband – the first accused, have marital disputes between them. The defacto complainant had obtained a protection order from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor and is staying in the matrimonial house under the colour of the order. The first accused is also staying in the same house, but in an adjacent room.

6. On 05/09/2024, a scuffle ensued between the husband and wife and the other accused intervened and all of them together is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant. The allegations do indicate that the accused had spoken in derogatory terms against the defacto complainant, especially in relation to her caste and therefore it is alleged that the offence under the SC/ST Act are attracted.

7. An objection has been filed on behalf of the defacto complainant pointing out that the assault occurred during the existence of the order of protection in her favour and therefore a lenient view ought not to be adopted.

8. In the medical certificate that was produced by the third respondent, though it was canvassed that there is evidence of fracture, on a scrutiny of the said document, it is noticed that there is no reference to any fracture on the body of the defacto complainant. On the other hand, she was only advised to take an X-ray of the left forearm as well as the anterior and lateral aspects of her palm. Though repeatedly this Court enquired with the learned counsel for the third respondent as to the report of the X-ray, no materials have been produced till date, despite granting an opportunity to do so. Thus, there is no material to enable this Court to come to a conclusion that the defacto complainant had sustained any fracture. Even the prosecution could not produce any document to evidence a fracutre.

9. Be that as it may, the question to be considered is whether the accused, who is alleged to have committed an offence under the SC/ST Act is entitled to anticipatory bail. Normally, the offence under the SC/ST Act being non bailable, an application for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in order to prevent the ends of justice bein