High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-28Appeal dismissed

Crl.A. No.693 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:CRL.A.No.693 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2020-10-28
Court Decision / Holding: In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The High Court upholds the Special Court’s denial of anticipatory bail under Section 18A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, with no compelling reason to grant pre-arrest bail given the prima facie materials and the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mohandas C.
Vijith A.

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police Kondotty Police Station, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Addl.R2 Susheela aged 39 years D/O Navuttý, Kan j irathaday i(H), Valiyaparambu P.O, Pullikkal, Kondotty, Malappuram-673637

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.C.K.Mohanan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Ambika Devi S, SPL.GP Atrocities
• Sri.Denizen Komath

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal appeal arising out of Crime No.522/2020 of Kondotty Police Station, pending in the Special Court (Atrocities Against SC/ST) at Manjeri. The appellants, Mohandas C. and Vijith A., are accused of offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 294(b) (obscene acts), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) read with 34, and under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, sections 3(i)(s) and 3(2)(va). The alleged incident occurred on 24 July 2020, around 6 p.m., when the de facto complainant—a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste—was allegedly restrained in public and subjected to caste-based abuse. The Special Court rejected the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, noting prima facie materials that attracted the Act’s provisions; it held that Section 18A(2) creates a bar to relief. The appellants argued that the allegations are untrue or inflated and that even if accepted, they do not amount to a serious offence warranting denial of bail; they suggested the facts were influenced by the complainant’s political associates. The Respondents contended the acts were serious, constituting a public humiliation and intimidation, justifying no bail. After hearing, the High Court affirmed the lower court’s view, citing the need for cautious exercise of the bail power under the PoA Act. The appeal is dismissed, upholding the denial of anticipatory bail.”

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC: 341, 294(b), 506(i) read with 34SC/ST (PoA) Act: 3(i)(s), 3(2)(va)SC/ST (PoA) Act: 18A(2)CrPC: 438

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Anticipatory bail under SC/ST (PoA) Act requires absence of a prima facie case.
Court should exercise caution while granting anticipatory bail in PoA Act cases.
Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 — guiding authority on bail under PoA Act.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that even assuming the allegations are true, no serious offence is made out to deny anticipatory bail. They contended the allegations could be the result of a minor altercation and may reflect a mischief or inflated claim, possibly driven by political motives. They urged that the complaint’s material should not automatically trigger the stringent provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act by invoking Section 18A(2), and that prima facie accountability for bail is required. The appellants pressed for cautious evaluation of prima facie materials and submission that the act does not constitute a grave, non-bailable offence.

Contentions of Respondents

The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, was illegally restrained, publicly insulted, and subjected to caste-based abuse, which reflects a deliberate and serious offence. He argued the acts are not petty and justify strict enforcement under Section 18/18A(2) of the PoA Act, with prima facie evidence on record from the FIR and materials. Relying on Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, the prosecution urged the court to uphold the Special Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail and to exercise caution in granting bail in PoA Act cases.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India	(2020)4 SCC 727	Positive	Cited to support cautious exercise of bail powers under the PoA Act and the requirement of a prima facie case before granting anticipatory bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Crl.A. No.693 of 2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **CRL.A.No.693 OF 2020** **CMP(T) 108/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI** **CRIME NO.522/2020 OF Kondotty Police Station , Malappuram** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **1 MOHANDAS C. AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KUTTY, VENGANAM PAARACKAL HOUSE, PULIKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPURAM-673637.** **2 VIJITH A., AGED 35 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, ATHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM-673634.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031.** - **2 ADDL.R2 SUSHEELA AGED 39 YEARS D/O NAVUTTY, KANJIRATHADAYI(H), VALIYAPARAMBU P.O, PULLIKKAL, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM-673637.** **IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/9/2020 IN CRL.MA 2/2020.** **R1 BY SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.GP ATROCITIES** 2 ## **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** **AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-** **10-2020, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 28[th] day of October **,** 2020 **Appellants are the accused in Crime No.522 of 2020 registered at the Kondotty Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act'). The prosecution allegation is that, on 24.07.2020, at about 6.00 p.m, the appellants illegally restrained the de facto complainant; a lady belonging to Scheduled Caste community and abused her by calling her caste name.** **2. The anticipatory bail application filed before the Special Court was rejected, finding that from the FIS, FIR and other materials, a** **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** 4 _**prima facie**_ **case was made out against the accused. The learned Special Judge referred to the bar under Section 18A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act to hold the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C to be not maintainable.** **3. Heard Sri.C.K.Mohanan, learned Counsel for the appellants. Smt.Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Sri.Denizen Komath, learned Counsel for the victim.** **4. The learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, no serious offence, so as to deny anticipatory bail to the appellants, is made out. According to the learned Counsel, the allegations in the complaint are false and was made at the instigation of the** _**de facto**_ **complainant's employer, who is a political leader. It is submitted that a minor wordy** **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** 5 **altercation is given the colour of offences under the Act, so as to deny the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the appellants.** **5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail and submitted that a hapless lady was illegally restrained, abused, intimidated and insulted in public by calling her caste name. Such acts can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as petty offences, is the contention. The rigor of Section 18 and 18A(2) of the Act was highlighted with the aid of the decision of the Apex Court in** _**Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [(2020)4 SCC 727]**_ **. It was pointed out that the learned Special Judge, after perusing the FIS and other records having been convinced of there being** _**prima facie**_ **materials to attract the alleged offences, there is no reason for this Court to come to a different conclusion.** **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** 6 **6. The learned Counsel for the victim supported the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the appellants had acted with the deliberate intention of insulting and humiliating the victim in public.** **On a careful consideration of the rival contentions and the impugned order, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants of the offences committed by the appellants not being serious enough to deny pre-arrest bail, is liable to be rejected. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, anticipatory bail can be granted for offences under the Act only in the event of no** _**prima facie**_ **case being made out. The Apex Court has alerted the courts to be cautious while exercising such power. The learned Special Judge had perused the FIS, FIR and other materials and had found them sufficient to attract the alleged** **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** 7 **offences. I find no reason to arrive at a different conclusion, so as to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the appellants by whittling down the rigor of Section 18A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.** **In the result, the appeal is dismissed.** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/28.10.2020 **Crl.A. No.693 of 2020** 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **ANNEXURE A** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A.NO.4757/2020 DATED 06.08.2020.** **ANNEXURE B** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPURAM DATED 01.08.2020.**