Read Time: 07 minutes
The court noted that there was long-standing enmity between the parties, which cast doubt on the credibility of the complaint
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no absolute bar against granting anticipatory bail in cases alleging offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, if no prima facie case is established or if the complaint appears to be mala fide on judicial scrutiny.
A Single judge bench of Justice K. Babu, delivered the verdict, while setting aside the order of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and granted anticipatory bail to three appellants, accused of offences under Sections 365, 348, 294(b), 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court observed : “There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases alleging offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. While considering the question of prima facie case, the material showing that the parties live in inimical terms is a circumstance to doubt a prima facie case.”
The case against the appellants, Praveen Kumar D.A, Shibin S, and Jayakrishnan J.M., arose from a confrontation on April 13, 2024, when the bike ridden by the defacto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste community, collided with a car. The appellants, who were passengers in the car, allegedly abused and assaulted the complainant and his friend. Later that night, the appellants were accused of brutally attacking the complainant. However, the appellants contended that the complaint was lodged as retaliation for an earlier altercation. It was further argued that the complainant had taken a motorbike from the house of the first accused after threatening the latter’s wife. The first accused’s wife had filed a complaint with the police on April 15, 2024, but the complainant filed his FIR over a month later, on May 16, 2024. The appellants contended that the charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act were falsely framed as a counterblast to the initial complaint filed by the wife of the first accused and there was no prima facie case against the appellants under the SC/ST Act, and hence, the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act should not apply.
The court, after perusing the First Information Report (FIR) and the case diary, found that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The court also noted that the parties appeared to have a history of enmity, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the complaint.
Citing precedents, including Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that there is no absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases where the complaint appears prima facie mala fide.
In light of the materials presented, the court concluded that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. It also found that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not required and that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was inapplicable in this case.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Special court's order and granting anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to certain conditions.
Cause Title: Praveen Kumar D.A and others v State of Kerala [CRL.MC No. 1783 of 2024]
Please Login or Register
