The court emphasizes the discretionary nature of bail decisions, considering custody duration and safety of the complainant.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 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 05.02.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Ernakulam, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the regular bail plea at the instance of the appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime No.957/2025 of Thrikkakara Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the defacto complainant on the last posting date. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant materials available.

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

4. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused, with the intention to sexually exploit the defacto complainant, caused her to live with him at a rented house bearing No. XXIII/211, situated near Kambaveli and Colony Junction, EMS Road, Vazhakala Village, and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions from 05.05.2025 to 07.09.2025. When the defacto complainant came to know that the accused was already married and had a child, she confronted him and thereafter returned to her parental home. Subsequently, on 05.10.2025, the accused took the defacto complainant to Room No. 310 on the third floor of Malabar Palace Hotel, situated on the northern side of the Civil Line Road, Vazhakala Village, and again had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the accused refused to marry her. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the accused.

5. While pressing for interference in the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that, in this case, on the promise of marriage the defacto complainant was subjected to rape by the accused is the allegation and in fact, promise to marriage is a remote possibility in the instant case, where admittedly the accused as well as the defacto complainant are married persons having spouse and children. Therefore, the allegations are baseless, prima facie. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that the accused has no criminal antecedents and he has been in custody from 27.01.2026. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused pressed for interference in the impugned order and grant of regular bail to the accused.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the order of the Special Judge is only to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal.

7. On the last posting date, the defacto complainant appeared in person and zealously opposed the bail application on the submission that, release of the accused on regular bail would cause threat to her life.

8. In this case, going through the records of the case, promise of marriage offered to the defacto complainant, who already married and subjecting herself to rape by the accused, who is also married, are the allegations. Therefore, the truth of the allegations is a matter of evidence. However, in the interest of justice, taking note of the custody of the accused from 27.01.2026 and the progress of investigation, I am inclined to set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, rejecting regular bail to the accused and to enlarge the accused on regular bail on conditions and one among the conditions is that, the accused shall not disturb the defacto complainant, in