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

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 1053 OF 2025 CRIME NO.350/2025 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 IN CRMC NO.674 OF 2025 OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, ALAPPUZHA.

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:

SHINU SHAJI AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SHAJI, KOLLACHIRA HOUSE, CHERTHALA THEKKU, CHERTHALA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 524.

BY ADVS.

SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC RESPONDEN T S / S TATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINAN T :

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

2 SHYAMLAL AGED 25 YEARS, S/O SANTHAPPAN, NEDUCHIRA HOUSE, AVALUKKUNNU.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 006.

BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN (SR.PP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST Act), challenging the order dated 30-05-2025 in Crl.M.C No.674/2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Alappuzha, through which an application for regular bail filed by the appellant was dismissed by that Court. The appellant is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.350/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station, Alappuzha district, which has been registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 333, 118(2), 109(1), 351(2), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.350/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station. It is submitted that the allegation is that the appellant, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and had attacked him, causing injuries to him. It is submitted that a reading of the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant would indicate that while there are allegations of specific overt acts against accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no allegation of any overt act against the appellant. It is submitted that the only allegation raised against the appellant is that he was carrying an axe like weapon and he had threatened the de facto complainant, stating that he would be done away with. It is submitted that the appellant has been in custody for more than 50 days, and further detention of the appellant is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the appellant. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant has criminal antecedents and Crime No.1127/2023 of Arthungal Police Station, Alappuzha district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 506, 451, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Crime No.997/2021 of Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha district alleging commission of offences under Sections 452, 326, 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC are registered against the appellant. It is submitted that Crime No.108/2025 of Arthungal Police Station, Alappuzha district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 351 r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS is also registered against the appellant. It is submitted that the notice of this bail application has been served on the de facto complainant.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be granted bail subject to strict conditions. The appellant has been in custody for the past 50 days. No specific allegation which indicates