The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to two young men accused in a violent Onam night assault, holding that the legal bar under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act squarely applies when prima facie materials support the charge.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused, confirming an earlier order of the Special Court at Pathanamthitta.
Read also:- Drug Sample Delay Breaks Case: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Directors
Background of the Case
The case arises from Crime No.1111/2025 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta district.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred around 10.45 pm on 28 September 2025 at Kochukunnumukku during Onam celebrations.
The complainant alleged that a group of men verbally abused him using obscene language, threatened him with death, and attacked him with an iron rod. He also stated that his autorickshaw was vandalised during the incident.
The appellants before the High Court were originally shown as Accused Nos. 6 and 8, later renumbered as Accused Nos. 5 and 6.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Backs Pollution Board’s Emergency Powers, Sends Hotel to NGT Over Power Cut
Charges Against the Accused
The police registered offences under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including non-bailable sections relating to causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and unlawful assembly.
Additionally, serious charges were invoked under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, alleging caste-based abuse and assault.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the accused were innocent and that the incident was a spontaneous altercation during festive celebrations.
It was contended that there was no deliberate intention to commit offences under the SC/ST Act and that the Special Court had wrongly rejected their plea for anticipatory bail.
The defence submitted that the appellants were willing to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
The prosecution strongly opposed the appeal, placing reliance on the First Information Statement and medical records.
The Public Prosecutor argued that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of the weapon and effective investigation. He also pointed out the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which restricts the grant of anticipatory bail.
Read also:- S. 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Under SC/ST Act: Kerala HC
Court’s Observations
After examining the records, the High Court noted that the injured had suffered head injuries and chest trauma, and was advised a CT scan and surgical consultation.
“The prosecution materials prima facie show the commission of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act as well as non-bailable offences,” the court observed.
The bench also noted that the complainant was personally known to the accused, allowing the court to infer knowledge of caste identity, as recognised under Section 8 of the SC/ST Act.
Justice Badharudeen reiterated that while the bar on anticipatory bail is not absolute, it applies when materials on record disclose the essential ingredients of offences under the Act.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in Chandigarh Beef Recovery Case
Decision of the Court
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the Special Court’s order refusing anticipatory bail.
“The appeal stands dismissed,” the court ruled, directing the accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith. The court further clarified that failure to surrender would permit the police to arrest them and proceed with the investigation.
Case Title: Athul P & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2250 of 2025
Decision Date: 12 January 2026
