The court held that when a prima facie case is made out for offenses under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, the statutory bar under Section 18 precludes the granting of anticipatory bail, and knowledge of the victim's caste identity can be inferred from prior association.

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 18^th day of June, 2026

1.This appeal has been filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 420/2026 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, aggrieved by dismissal of their anticipatory bail application vide order dated 22.05.2026 in B.A. No. 25/2026, by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (for short, 'SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018' hereinafter) Cases, Thrissur.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order under challenge and scrutinised the records produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The appellants are the first and second accused in the above said crime respectively and the offences alleged against the appellants/accused persons are punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 329(3), 296(b), 351(2) and 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS', hereinafter) and 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 as well as under Sections 3(2) (va), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018.

4. As per the impugned order, on finding commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 prima facie and on finding the bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application for anticipatory bail.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that in this case, the appellants/accused did not know the caste identity of the defacto complainant and therefore, for the said reason none of the offences under Section SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 would attract. It is also pointed out that apart from the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 offences, all other offences are bailable.

6. It is also submitted that the occurrence is the outcome of political rivalry in between two political parties and therefore, lenient view may be taken in the matter of granting anticipatory bail.

7. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants placed the the judgment of this Court reported in [2022(6) KHC 672], xxxx v. State of Kerala and Another, wherein in paragraph No. 38, this Court observed as under:-

“38. Therefore, it is clear that while considering the question as to whether an accused committed offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act after trial, the word "knowing" or `knowledge', has to be found on the basis of the evidence tendered. When considering the question of prima facie case for the purpose of considering plea of bail during investigation and the period before trial, the knowledge shall be understood and inferred from the prosecution records. In this matter, the accused and de-facto complainant are very familiar to each other as could be discernible from the prosecution records and other materials. Therefore, the required knowledge of the accused that the de-facto complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste is well discernible from the materials available as ascribed in Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.”

Another decision of this Court in [2022 KHC 745], Abbas R.V. v. State of Kerala, also has been placed with reference to paragraph No.17 wherein this Court held as under:-

“17. Therefore, it is clear that while considering the question as to whether an accused committed offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act after trial, the word "knowing" or knowledge, has to be found on the basis of evidence tendered. When considering the question of prima facie case for the purpose of considering plea of bail during investigation and the period before trial, the knowledge shall be understood and inferred from the prosecution records.”

The decision reported in [2024 KHC 7090], Raju Joseph v. State of Kerala, also has been placed with reference to paragraph No. 8, which reads as under:-

“8. S.8(c) of the SC/ST Act would show that if the accused was having personal knowledge of the vi