The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by two accused persons seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of caste-based abuse, criminal intimidation, trespass, and use of explosive substances. The Court held that once the materials on record disclose a prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act becomes operative, thereby restricting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Title of the Case: Bhageesh Pooradan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
The appellants, Bhageesh Pooradan and Sreejith, were arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 420 of 2026 registered at Valappad Police Station, Thrissur. The crime involved allegations under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Indian Explosives Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution, an incident occurred on 6 May 2026 at around 7:30 p.m. when the accused, along with several other identifiable persons, allegedly entered the courtyard of the complainant’s residence and detonated explosive substances. The complainant, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, came outside upon hearing the explosion. It was alleged that the first accused abused her by referring to her caste name “Vettuva” along with derogatory language.
The complainant further alleged that when her husband came outside, the accused repeated threats and intimidation, warning that they would not allow the family to live peacefully in the locality and threatening to kill them. The incident allegedly terrified the family, including the children, who rushed inside the house and locked the doors.
Procedural History
Following registration of the FIR, the accused approached the Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act seeking anticipatory bail.
The Special Judge dismissed the application on 22 May 2026, holding that a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was disclosed and that the statutory bar under Section 18 prevented the grant of anticipatory bail.
Aggrieved by this decision, the accused preferred a criminal appeal before the Kerala High Court.
Charges Invoked
The accused were charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including offences relating to trespass, intimidation, threats, and other related conduct. They were also booked under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The crucial question before the High Court was whether the SC/ST Act offences were prima facie established. If they were, Section 18 of the Act would bar anticipatory bail.
Arguments Advanced by the Appellants
The appellants primarily contended that they had no knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant. Since knowledge of caste identity is a crucial element for attracting certain provisions of the SC/ST Act, they argued that the offences under the Act were not made out.
The defence submitted that:
- The accused were unaware that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
- Consequently, the ingredients of the SC/ST Act offences were absent.
- Apart from the offences under the SC/ST Act, the remaining offences were bailable in nature.
- The incident was politically motivated and arose out of rivalry between political groups.
- Therefore, the Court should adopt a lenient approach and grant anticipatory bail.
The appellants relied upon previous decisions of the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court concerning the requirement of knowledge of caste identity and the interpretation of offences under the SC/ST Act.
Reliance on Earlier Judicial Precedents
The defence cited multiple precedents where courts discussed the requirement of knowledge regarding caste identity.
The Kerala High Court’s earlier decisions in xxxx v. State of Kerala, Abbas R.V. v. State of Kerala, and Raju Joseph v. State of Kerala were cited to contend that knowledge of caste must be established before liability under the SC/ST Act can arise.
The defence also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Court held that mere commission of an offence against a Scheduled Caste person is not sufficient; there must be evidence indicating that the offence was committed because the victim belonged to that community.
Stand of the Defacto Complainant
The complainant strongly opposed the plea for anticipatory bail. It was argued that the accused and the complainant were not strangers. They belonged to the same locality and had previously worked together in the same political party. The complainant later joined a rival political party, which allegedly led to hostility.
According to the complainant, the accused were fully aware of her caste identity because of their long-standing acquaintance. Therefore, the argument that they lacked knowledge of her caste was wholly untenable.
The complainant further submitted that the allegations clearly disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Once such offences are prima facie established, Section 18 bars anticipatory bail.
Prosecution’s Position
The Public Prosecutor supported the complainant’s stand and produced the case diary and investigation records before the Court.
The prosecution argued that the materials collected during the investigation clearly disclosed caste-based abuse and intimidation. It was submitted that the Special Judge had rightly concluded that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act existed, and therefore, anticipatory bail could not be granted.
Issues Before the Court
The principal questions considered by the High Court were:
- Whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie offence under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the accused could claim that they had no knowledge of the complainant’s caste identity.
- Whether the alleged caste abuse occurred within “public view.”
- Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied.
- Whether anticipatory bail could nevertheless be granted.
Court’s Analysis of the Bailable Offences
The Court first noted that all the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita invoked in the FIR were bailable. Similarly, the offence under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act carried a punishment of two years and was therefore treated as bailable.
However, the Court observed that the decisive factor was not these offences but the allegations under the SC/ST Act, which are non-bailable and attract the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail.
Whether a Prima Facie Offence was Made Out
The High Court carefully examined the allegations in the complaint and the witness statements.
The complainant alleged that the first accused specifically addressed her by her caste name and used abusive language. The prosecution had also collected statements from:
- The complainant’s husband;
- The complainant’s mother; and
- Two independent witnesses.
These statements substantially supported the complainant’s version of events. The Court held that at the bail stage it is not necessary to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence. The requirement is only to determine whether a prima facie case exists.
On the available materials, the Court concluded that a prima facie case was indeed disclosed.
Interpretation of “Public View”
A significant aspect of the judgment concerns the interpretation of the phrase “within public view” under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that a place within public view need not necessarily be a public place.
Even a private property may become a place within public view if third persons are present and capable of witnessing or hearing the insulting conduct.
The Court explained that the presence of other individuals who can overhear caste-based abuse is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of public view.
In the present case, the incident allegedly occurred in the courtyard of the complainant’s house. However, several accused persons were present together. According to the Court, when multiple persons participate in the abusive conduct, their collective presence itself contributes to the element of public view because the humiliation occurs in the presence of others.
Knowledge of Caste Identity
The Court rejected the defence argument that the accused were unaware of the complainant’s caste. The judgment records that the parties belonged to the same locality and had worked together in the same political party for a considerable period. Given these circumstances, the Court held that it was reasonable to infer, at least prima facie, that the accused were aware of the complainant’s caste identity.
The Court relied on earlier precedents holding that knowledge of caste may be inferred from surrounding circumstances and need not always be proved through direct evidence at the stage of considering bail.
The issue of rebutting such a presumption could be addressed during trial, but not at the stage of anticipatory bail.
Applicability of Section 3(2)(va)
The Court also observed that the commission of a scheduled offence against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can attract Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Since the prosecution’s allegations disclosed the commission of scheduled offences and caste-based abuse, the Court found sufficient material to prima facie invoke Section 3(2)(va) as well.
Criminal Antecedents of the Accused
An additional factor considered by the Court was the criminal history of the appellants. The investigating officer reported that both accused had been involved in multiple earlier criminal cases.
The first accused was linked to six earlier criminal cases involving offences such as rioting, assault, obstruction, and criminal intimidation. The second accused was similarly involved in several prior criminal cases.
While antecedents alone may not justify denial of bail, the Court regarded them as relevant circumstances when assessing the overall case.