Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 185 (KER)

Aboobacker N. K. S/o Alavi v. State of Kerala

2026-02-23

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2026
JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST POA Act, 2018' for short] challenging order dated 31.01.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjery, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime No.68/2026 of Malappuram Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though, notice has been served upon the 3 rd respondent, he did not appear. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘defacto complainant’, hereafter. 4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 08.00 hours on 11.01.2026, the accused, who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and being aware of the caste identity of the defacto complainant as a member of Scheduled Caste community, called caste name of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill him, due to animosity arose out of a boundary dispute in between them and thereby the defacto complainant was abused within public view. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, by the accused. 5. While pressing for interference in the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that, the accused is innocent and the entire case has been foisted against him to wreak vengeance, since he had filed suit as O.S. No.235/2024 before the Munsiff Court, Manjery, seeking prohibitory injunction restraining trespass upon his property by the defacto complainant and others, as early on 31.05.2024, where the defacto complainant herein got arrayed as the 3 rd defendant. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations are false and same could not be the basis to proceed against the accused. Further, the learned counsel for the accused offered co-operation of the accused in the matter of investigation. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations are false and same could not be the basis to proceed against the accused. Further, the learned counsel for the accused offered co-operation of the accused in the matter of investigation. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused pressed for interference in the impugned order and grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the plea of pre-arrest bail and submitted that going through the FIS, the ingredients for the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act to be gathered prima facie and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the order of the Special Judge is only to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal. 7. On perusal of the FIS, it could be seen that, at about 08.00 hours on 11.01.2026, there was a quarrel in between the defacto complainant and the accused regarding the boundary separating their properties and during exchange of words, the accused alleged to have called the caste name of the defacto complainant, within public view, wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill him. 8. It is the settled law that, when prima facie commission of offence/offences punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out, grant of anticipatory bail is legally barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and grant of anticipatory bail is permissible only if the prosecution allegations in toto do not substantiate, prima facie, offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act. 9. Thus, while considering anticipatory bail plea raised by an accused, who alleged to have committed offence/offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the Court has to consider the genesis of the case and attending circumstances with a view to find whether prima facie, the offence/offences is/are made out. While undertaking the said exercise, the entire records, including the motive behind registration of the crime, previous rivalry between the parties, previous litigation between parties and element of false implication shall be matters of consideration. In the instant case, admittedly a suit has been filed by the appellant/accused against the defacto complainant and others for prohibitory injunction. In fact, even as per the prosecution allegation, the quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused arose out of a boundary dispute i.e. the subject matter of civil suit. In the instant case, admittedly a suit has been filed by the appellant/accused against the defacto complainant and others for prohibitory injunction. In fact, even as per the prosecution allegation, the quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused arose out of a boundary dispute i.e. the subject matter of civil suit. Even though while evaluating materials, some ingredients for the offences alleged are made out, such allegations would require thorough investigation to find the truth thereof, especially on the factual background that a civil dispute is pending between the same parties to avoid false implication and detention of rival/litigating party in jail. When there is rivalry between the parties, previous or pending litigation between the parties, false implication could not be ruled out and in such cases it is not safe to conclude that the allegations are prima facie made out for the purpose of Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, though investigation must go on to reach a logical conclusion regarding the allegations. In such cases, grant of anticipatory bail to be considered in the interest of justice to avoid unnecessary detention of innocent persons. Thus, I hold that accused/appellant herein is liable to be released on anticipatory bail, taking into consideration the particular facts of this case. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and appellant/accused shall be released on pre-arrest bail on the following conditions:- i) The appellant/accused shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today. On such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate him and effectuate recovery, if any, in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. for two days. In the event of the arrest of appellant, he shall be produced before the Special Court on the date of arrest itself. ii) On such production the Special Court shall release the appellant on bail on him executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned. iii) The appellant/accused shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper the evidence. He shall cooperate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. iv) The appellant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without prior permission of the court. iii) The appellant/accused shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper the evidence. He shall cooperate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. iv) The appellant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without prior permission of the court. v) The appellant/accused shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court. vi) The appellant/accused shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported to came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.