The court found that allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act were dubious as two accused belonged to the Scheduled Caste, allowing anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^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 20.01.2026 in Crl.M.C. No.4084/2025 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjery, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1190/2025 of Changaramkulam Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though, notice as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act has been served upon respondent Nos.2 to 4, they did not appear.

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

4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 20.30 hours on 14.12.2025, the accused, being aware of the caste identity of the defacto complainant as a member of Scheduled Caste community, trespassed upon the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and the 1^st accused beat her with hands. Further, the accused beat the defacto complainant’ children and kicked them and abused the defacto complainant by calling her caste name and also threatened to kill her. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 296(b) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, by the accused.

5. While pressing for interference in the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would submit that, the entire case has been foisted against the accused as a result of political vendetta. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations are false and same could not be the basis to proceed against the accused. Further, the learned counsel for the accused offered co-operation of the accused in the matter of investigation. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused pressed for interference in the impugned order and grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor placed the case diary, which contains the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant and he also fairly submitted that, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are also members of Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, as against accused Nos.2 and 3, offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply.

7. It is the settled law that, when prima facie commission of offence/offences punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out, grant of anticipatory bail is legally barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and grant of anticipatory bail is permissible only if the prosecution allegations in toto do not substantiate, prima facie, offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

8. On perusal of the FIS and the prosecution records, it could be seen that, at about 08.30 p.m. on 14.12.2025, when the defacto complainant heard shouting of slogans at her courtyard of the house and when she came out, there were group of people and out of which, the accused persons uttered that the defacto complainant should control her children and when the defacto complainant interfered, somebody among them called the caste name of the defacto complainant and abused her. It could be noticed that, only three persons are in the array of accused and the incident, as per the FIS, took place inside the courtyard of the house