The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if prima facie evidence of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act exists against the appellants.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST POA Act, 2018' for short], challenging order dated 29.11.2025 in Crl.M.C. No.48/2025 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Nedumangad, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1072/2025 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the defacto complainant/injured in this case, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘defacto complainant’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 07.00 p.m. on 13.11.2025, Anilkumar (A1), Praveen (A2), Prasanth (A3), Mahesh (A4) and Sudhi (A5), who do not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, manhandled the defacto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The specific allegation of the prosecution further is that, on the previous day at about 5.30 p.m, while the defacto complainant was sweeping the courtyard of her cousin’s house, one Gokul, S/o Anil Kumar (A1) came there and ashamed her referring her second marriage. Thereafter, she informed the same to her mother in the evening and Ajith (brother of the defacto complainant) overheard the same and he went to the house of the 1^st accused to ask about the incident. Thereafter, the defacto complainant heard the outcry of Ajith and it was found that Ajith was manhandled by the accused persons and Praveen (A2) was possessing a black rod and other persons were possessing wooden log and they manhandled Ajith by using the same. Then, the defacto complainant interfered and Ajith was saved, though he sustained injuries out of the occurrence. Later, when the defacto complainant informed Anilkumar (A1) that, if there was any grievance, it would have been informed to her, Praveen (A2) caught hold on her and moved her away after uttering abusive words against her. When the defacto complainant informed that she was pregnant, Anilkumar (A1) uttered that, the defacto complainant as a member of Vedar community and nobody would question if she would be killed. Again, Praveen (A2) abused and ashamed the defacto complainant, by calling her caste name, within public view. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 126(2), 115(1), 118(1) and 74 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Sections 3 (1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, by the accused.

5. While pressing for interference of the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that, the allegations in toto are baseless and this case has been foisted against the accused persons, after noticing the fact that, Crime No.1071/2025 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 332(c) and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the BNS has been registered, at about 14.34 hours on 14.11.2025, where the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 therein, who are one Abhi and an identifiable person, trespassed upon the house of Sri.Gopakumar G.B., the defacto complainant therein and threatened to throw bomb at his house. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the said Sri.Gopakumar G.B. and the 1^st