J U D G M E N T

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - A. FACTUAL MATRIX ...................................................................................2 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ....................... 10 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ................. 13 D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE................................... 15 E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS .......................................... 16 F. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ......................................................... 20 G. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 21 i. Evolution of the concept of anticipatory bail .................................................... 21 ii. Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act? .......................... 27 a. Significance of the expression “arrest of any person” appearing in Section

18 of the Act, 1989 ................................................................................................................. 41 iii. When can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint? ........................................................................................................ 47 iv. Whether the averments in the FIR/complaint in question disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989? ............. 51 a. Meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate” appearing in Section

3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 ........................................................................................................ 55 v. Whether any offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, 1989 is prima facie made out in the FIR/complaint in question? ..................................................... 63 vi. Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989? ..... 64 H. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 69

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2023 filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ernakulam Division declining to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant herein in connection with the First Information Report No. 899 of 2023 lodged by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) at the Elamakkara Police Station, District Ernakulam for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) respectively of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the “Act, 1989”).

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 24.05.2023, the appellant herein, in his capacity as the Editor of an online news channel named “Marunandan Malayali” published a video on YouTube, an online video sharing platform, levelling certain allegations against the complainant. The English translation of the video transcript is reproduced hereinbelow: - “Thumb Every one's afraid of P.V. Srinijan who grew up like a mafia don!

Title Who made P.V. Srinijan a mafia don?

Content It was before a few days; the outside world knew about the news. The pride of Kerala, Kerala blasters was holding a selection trial which was for children under the age of 17. Children and parents had to wait for hours in front of the stadium at Panampally Nagar, Ernakulam which was owned by the Sports Council.

The Stadium was closed, because P.V. Srinijan, District Sports Council President and MLA of Kunnathunad had alleged that Kerala blasters had a debt to clear with Kerala Sports Council. Media took on the news and people got furious over it.