Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Four Accused in SC/ST Atrocity Case Amid Counter FIRs

A single‑judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen heard an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended in 2018) challenging the Special Court’s order dated 29.11.2025 that dismissed anticipatory bail pleas of four accused in Crime No.1072/2025 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal concerned allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018 and various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the order of the Special Judge and directed release of the appellants on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions including surrender within seven days, production before the Special Court, bond amounting to Rs.30,000 with two solvent sureties and usual prohibitions against witness tampering and leaving jurisdiction. The Court noted the settled principle 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", but concluded that the prosecution materials did not show overt acts by all accused to attract the special Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Here, case and counter case have been registered, as already pointed out. The prosecution materials do not show any overt acts in specific by accused Nos.4 and 5 to attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, there is no necessity to deny anticipatory bail to them. It is pertinent to note that, when case and counter have been registered, it is not safe to say that in both crimes the allegations to be true, though the allegations in both crimes would require investigation to find the truth thereof. In such case, grant of anticipatory bail to be considered in the interest of justice to avoid unnecessary detention of innocent persons. Thus, I hold that appellants herein are liable to be released on anticipatory bail."

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 13.11.2025 at about 7.00 p.m. the defacto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste community, was manhandled and abused by a group including the first four accused, and that caste epithets and threats were used; her brother Ajith was allegedly assaulted and sustained injuries. The complaint stated that earlier the day before one affiliated person had shamed her regarding her second marriage, and when the brother intervened he was attacked by persons reportedly armed with a black rod and wooden logs. The FIR in the crime (Annexure‑A1) was registered at 15:42 hours on 14.11.2025; another FIR (Annexure‑A2), lodged earlier at 14:34 hours the same day by the then first accused in that FIR, recorded counter‑allegations, resulting in case and counter case on the same day.

The appellants argued that the case was foisted, relied on a video handed to the Investigating Officer and said that prima facie material did not attract the SC/ST (POA) Act against all accused. The Public Prosecutor contended that the FIS and materials prima facie disclosed offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act and that Section 18 barred anticipatory bail where such prima facie case existed. The Special Court had dismissed the anticipatory bail application; the High Court examined the FIS, the timing and content of the two FIRs and the nature of overt acts alleged against individual accused and observed that overt acts attracting the special Act were mainly directed at accused Nos.1 and 2, while the prosecution materials did not sufficiently show specific overt acts by the other accused sought to be held under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Applying the settled legal position on Section 18 and weighing the existence of case and counter case, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants (accused Nos.1 to 4) with enumerated conditions, while observing that investigation and trial would determine the truth of the allegations.

Case Details: Case No.: Crl.A. No. 2346 of 2025 Case Title: Gopakumar G B @ Anilkumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Suvin R. Menon (Advocate), Smt. Parshathy S.R. (Advocate), Shri Achuth Krishnan R. (Advocate), Smt. Cristy Therasa Suresh (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala; Shri Anand Remesh (Advocate), Smt. Feba Mary Thomas (Advocate), Sri Jayakrishnan P.P. (Advocate)