IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

TH MONDAY, THE 14 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 962 OF 2025 CRIME NO.535/2024 OF Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2025 IN Crl.MP NO.776 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA)

ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

PRAMOD. P, AGED 39 YEARS S/O PARTHAN PILLAI ,KARTHIKA PARIYARAM CHOONDI, PUTHENCRUZ ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308 BY ADVS.

SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY SRI.M.S.ANEER SHRI.SARATH K.P.

SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.

SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN SMT.DIPA V.

SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

2 SREEJA KM, AGED 45 YEARS W/O SETHUGOPAL G, RESIDING AT SREENIVAS HOUSE, KALATHIPARAMBU, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY, NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024 SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN A,SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), challenging the order dated 24.05.2025 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 in Crl.M.C. No.776 of 2025, dismissing the application filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.535 of 2024 of Edathala Police Station. The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.535 of 2024 of Edathala Police Station, which has been registered alleging commission of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

2. The allegation against the appellant is that, while working as Vice-Principal of Bharat Mata School of Legal Studies, the appellant insulted the de facto complainant, who is also a teacher in the said institution, in public view since, she, as in-charge of the drama competition of the college, had permitted late night rehearsal without the permission of the appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant had humiliated the de facto complainant by referring to her caste name.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent in the matter. It is submitted that, even going by the allegations, the appellant had only reprimanded the de facto complainant as a part of enforcing discipline in the college, which was his duty as the Vice- Principal. It is submitted that, the allegation that there was a casteist slur is false, and such an allegation has been raised only to incorporate an offence under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. It is submitted that, there has been no such allegation against the appellant hereinbefore. It is also pointed out that the allegations raised against the appellant are not sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. It is submitted that, even if all the allegations in the First Information Statement are taken as true, the appellant has not committed any offence under the SC/ST Act.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. It is pointed out that, going by the allegations in the First Information Statement, the appellant had referred to the de facto complainant by her caste name and had even stated that she is engaged in such activities only on account of her caste. It is submitted that, since there is a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail in offences relating to the SC/ST Act, this Court can grant anticipatory bail to the appellant only if this Court were to conclude that, prima facie, none of the offences under the SC/ST Act are attracted. Learned Public Prosecutor confirms that notice of the bail application has been served on the de facto complainant.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The allegation ag