Bail denial upheld due to serious charges and threat to complainant's safety; prior violent offenses considered crucial.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2026 This appeal has been filed by the fifth accused in S.C. No. 1934/2024 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018 (for short, 'SC/ST (PoA) Act' hereinafter), challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No. 610/2025 dated 09.10.2025, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the regular bail application filed by the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/5^th accused, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant. Perused the order under challenge, the prosecution records as well as the records produced along with this appeal.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B , 323, 324, 326, 341 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the accused persons.

4. The prosecution allegation is that on account of an animosity over some dispute between one Akhil (cousin brother of the defacto complainant) and his friends with accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 at a bar hotel in Pappanamcode, A1, A5 and A6 had suffered injuries at the hands of Akhil and his friends, A1, A2, A5 to A8 along with the 3^rd and 4^th accused conspired together to attack and kill the aforesaid Akhil. It is alleged that at about 5.55 p.m. Of 10.05.2024, the 3^rd accused together with accused Nos. 1 and 2 arrived near Maruthoorkadavu Bridge Junction in a car driven by the 4^th accused and attacked aforesaid Akhil. When the aforesaid Akhil fell down, the 1^st accused picked up a concrete hollow brick and threw it on Akhil causing fatal injuries leading to his death.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been in custody from 12.05.2025 and the final report already filed. Therefore, further custody of the appellant is not required for any purpose.

Therefore, he may be released on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail to the appellant and filed a report in the instance of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram City narrating the case as stated in paragraphs 3 to 7 as under:-

“3. It is respectfully submitted that in this regard, crime No. 528/2024 U/s 324, 302 & 34 IPC case was registered at Karamana Police Station on 10.05.2024. The case was initially investigated by Inspector SHO, Karamana Police Station, During the course of the investigation, Sections 120-B, 323 and Sections 3 (2)(v)(a) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 were incorporated. Subsequently the investigation of the case was conducted by then Assistant Commissioners of Police, Fort Sub Division as the section under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act attracted to this case.

4. It is respectfully submitted that during the course of investigation scene mahazar prepared and scientific evidences collected from the crime scene. Statements of the witnesses recorded. CCTV footage from various locations, including the crime scene showing the brutal assault, was obtained and examined. Inquest was conducted, and the post-mortem examination revealed that the accused persons inflicted 52 fatal injuries on the deceased, including fractures of the sternum and ribs. The conveyance and the weapons used by the accused persons to commit the aforementioned crime were seized. Based on the findings and evidence collected, accused persons 1 to 8, including the petitioner, were arrested from their hideouts at regular interv