The Kerala High Court on Monday (12 January 2026) refused to grant anticipatory bail to two young men accused in a violent assault case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court held that the allegations, supported by medical evidence, were serious in nature and clearly attracted the bar on pre-arrest bail under the special law.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the order while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging a Sessions Court decision that had earlier rejected their plea for anticipatory bail.
Read also:- Drug Sample Delay Breaks Case: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Directors
Background of the Case
The case arises from an incident that allegedly occurred on the night of 28 September 2025 at Kochukunnumukku in Pathanamthitta district.
According to the prosecution, a group of men allegedly abused the defacto complainant using obscene language, threatened him with death, and physically assaulted him. It was alleged that one of the accused attempted to strike the victim’s head with an iron rod, while another stamped on his thigh. The group also allegedly attacked others accompanying the victim and damaged his autorickshaw.
The crime was registered at Enath Police Station under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The appellants, Athul P. and Ajeesh T., were arrayed as accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the case.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Backs Pollution Board’s Emergency Powers, Sends Hotel to NGT Over Power Cut
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that the incident occurred during Onam celebrations and that there was no deliberate intention to commit any offence under the SC/ST Act. It was submitted that the accused were innocent and willing to cooperate with the investigation.
However, the Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the plea, placing reliance on the First Information Statement and the wound certificate. The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary and that the nature of injuries showed active participation by the accused.
The State also pointed out that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail where prima facie offences are made out.
Read also:- Former MLA’s Security Concern: Calcutta High Court Says Centre to Decide on Protection
Court’s Observations
After examining the records, Justice Badharudeen noted that the medical report showed serious injuries, including a head wound requiring further medical examination.
“The wound certificate reveals injuries to the chest and scalp, and the victim was advised CT scan and surgical consultation,” the court observed.
The judge further noted that the accused were known to the victim, making it reasonable to infer knowledge of the complainant’s caste identity - a key requirement under the SC/ST Act.
The court also referred to Section 18 of the Act, which bars the application of anticipatory bail when prima facie offences are disclosed. It held that this bar would apply in the present case, especially since non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were also involved.
Read also:- No Privacy Breach in Lawful Probe: Supreme Court Backs ED's Right to Examine Seized Mobile
Final Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the order of the Special Court and refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
“The appeal stands dismissed. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith,” the court ordered, adding that failure to do so would entitle the police to proceed with arrest as per law.
Case Title: Athul P. & Anr. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.A No. 2250 of 2025
Decision Date: 12 January 2026
