Anticipatory bail can be granted under the SC/ST (POA) Act where allegations raise serious doubts necessitating further investigation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The appellants are accused in Crime No.2665/2025 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. They assail order of the learned Special Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2410/2025 dated 09.01.2026, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel who appeared for the de facto complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the FIS is that at about 11.00 p.m. on 09.12.2025, i.e., the day of election for local bodies, one Riyas, who is the 2^nd accused along with the other accused persons, who do not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, reached the office of the de facto complainant and abused the de facto complainant, who is a member of the Parava community along with others by stating that none of the members of the Parava colony would be spared. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1) and 296(b) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 as well as under Sections 3 (1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’, by the accused persons.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in fact, some dispute arose on the date of local body election between the workers of two political parties and the same led to registration of this crime. It is also submitted that use of a vehicle against the restrictions of the election commission, nearby election booth, and questioning of the same by the appellants led to difference of opinion and out of the same, a false case has been foisted incorporating SC/ST (POA) Act offences to detain the appellants in custody without any basis. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the ingredients necessary to attract the offences are not made out prima facie and this case was registered against the appellants, who are supporters of the opposition party, in fact, one arose out of political rivalry in between the ruling party as well as the opposition. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for interference in the order impugned and grant of pre-arrest bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor placed the FIS as well as the wound certificate pertaining to the de facto complainant, Nikhil, who had given the FIS which led to the registration of the crime, and opposed bail on the submission that the alleged offences would attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the grant of bail to the accused is not warranted. However, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that, insofar as the allegation regarding calling of caste name is concerned, the same is stated only against the 2^nd accused/2^nd appellant. It is pointed out that accused No.5, Ajimon M.A. has criminal antecedents, as under:

Sl.No. Crime No. Offences Police Station

1. 1015/2022 143, 147, 283 r/w Muvattupuzha

149 IPC

2. 2726/2022 395, 363 IPC Muvattupuzha

3. 952/2023 354A(i)and(iv), 294(b), 506, 509 Muvattupuzha IPC

6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant zealously opposed bail on the submission that the ingredients necessary to attract the offences are made out prima facie, therefore, grant of bail to the accused persons is not warranted as the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. On perusal of the FIS, it could be seen that there was difference of opinion between the party represent