Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1075

2026 KER 44540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Bhageesh Pooradan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A No. 750 Of 2026
Decided On : 18-06-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For The Petitioner : Advs., Smt.E.U.Dhanya, Sri.Lindons C.Davis, Smt.N.S.Shamila, Smt.Chinju P. Joyies, Shri.Vinayak Manoharan P.
For The Respondent : Smt. Hasna Mol N.S., Public Prosecutor, Advs. Sri.R.Ranjith (Manjeri), Smt.Aiswarya Mad

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.U. Dhanyasri, Lindons C. Davis, N.S. Shamila, Chinju P. Joyies, Vinayak Manohar
For the Respondents: Hasna Mol N.S., R. Ranjith, Aiswarya Madhu

A statutory bar on anticipatory bail is triggered once a prima facie case under the special anti-atrocity legislation is established. A place constitutes 'within public view' if the act of humiliation occurs in the presence of third parties or several participants, even in a private setting.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 - Section 18 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Explosives Act, 1884 - Anticipatory bail - Statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act applies when a prima facie case for commission of offences is established - Scope of 'within public view' - An act of humiliation occurring in the presence of third parties or when multiple offenders act in concert satisfies the requirement of public view regardless of whether the location is private - Knowledge of caste identity can be inferred based on facts for the purpose of granting bail, with rebuttable presumption principles applicable. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appellate Review - Judicial function in appeal is to determine if the prima facie case exists and if legal barriers to bail operate, without re-evaluating the entire evidence as in a trial. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellants sought anticipatory bail after a lower court dismissed their application regarding criminal charges involving explosives and verbal abuse. Allegations include illegal trespass, use of explosive materials, and insulting remarks directed at the victim's caste identity. The appellants argued a lack of knowledge regarding the victim's social background and attributed the incident to political competition.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the presence of multiple offenders and the nature of the insults indicated that the incident occurred within public view, fulfilling the necessary criteria under the relevant special legislation. It held that once a prima facie case of an offence under the Act is made out, the statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail is triggered, and the court is prohibited from intervening.

Issues: Whether the statutory bar on anticipatory bail applies given the facts; whether the incident occurred in a location that qualifies as 'within public view'; and whether the claim of lack of knowledge regarding the victim's social identity warrants relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A place is considered 'within public view' if the abusive act is overheard by third parties or if multiple offenders participate to humiliate the victim, even in a private dwelling. Where a prima facie case is established, the legislative mandate prohibiting anticipatory bail must be strictly enforced, and knowledge of identity is to be assessed based on the social and local proximity between the parties as reflected in prosecution records.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and overview of charges under bns and sc/st act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments concerning knowledge of victim caste status and necessity of prima facie case for bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. evaluation of prima facie evidence for offences under sc/st act and bailable nature of related offences. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. interpretation of 'within public view' regarding public presence or multi-accused involvement. (Para 12)
5. impact of prior criminal antecedents on the exercise of judicial discretion for bail. (Para 13)
6. denial of anticipatory bail due to statutory bar under section 18 of sc/st act. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Dated, this the 18th 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 the 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 judgment of this Court reported in [2022(6) KHC 672], xxx x 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 consider

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1075

A statutory bar on anticipatory bail is triggered once a prima facie case under the special anti-atrocity legislation is established. A place constitutes 'within public view' if the act of humiliation occurs in the presence of third parties or several participants, even in a private setting.

Cases Referred (2)