1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST POA Act, 2018' for short], challenging order dated 04.04.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 in S.C. No.99/2024 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ernakulam, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the regular bail plea at the instance of the appellant, who is the 1st accused in the above said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Though, notice served upon the relative of the deceased victim, nobody appeared. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant materials available.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, in retaliation to prior enmity between the accused and the victim, at about 5.30 p.m. on 06.10.2024, the first accused along with the second accused, who do not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of the deceased, who belonged to the Schedule Caste community, reached the house of the victim that situated in a place named Kallumala at Aimury in a motor bike driven by the second accused and the first accused brutally assaulted the victim with a chopper causing multiple injuries on his body. The victim subsequently succumbed to the injuries. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST POA Act, 2018, by the accused.

4. While pressing for interference in the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused/appellant herein would submit that, the 1st accused is innocent of the allegations and he has been in custody from 07.10.2023 and there is no likelihood of commencing of trial in the near future. It is also submitted that, the earlier bail application filed before the Special Court was dismissed and Crl.A. No.329/2025 filed challenging the said order was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Special Court again and the impugned order emerged when the second bail application was considered and dismissed by the learned Special Judge. According to the learned counsel for the 1st accused/appellant herein, even though the 1st accused is having criminal antecedents, in many of the cases he has been acquitted and only few cases are now pending. Therefore, he pressed for grant of regular bail to the 1st accused/appellant.

5. Whereas, grant of regular bail to the appellant is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and a report of the Investigating Officer has been placed. In paragraph Nos.6 to 20 of the report it has been stated as under:

                  6). It is respectfully submitted that the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted at Government Medical College, Ernakulam, on 07.10.2023. The Senior Resident Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and provided the postmortem examination Report No. 886/2023, dated 07.10.2023. In the PM Examination report, there are 12 numbers of Antemortem Injuries and the opinion as to cause of death is "Death was due to Incised Wound sustained to right upper limb and left lower limb (Injury no. 1 to 3, no. 10 and no. 11)". The right hand of the deceased was amputated from the body by the appellant/first accused using the dangerous weapon, sword.

                  7). It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/first accused was arrested on 30.01.2024 as per detention order No.DCEKM/12974/2023-M7; Dated. 19.01.2024 issued by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Ernakulam, under section 3(1) r/w 13(2)(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, for 1 year detention with effect from the date of detention, and he was detained at Central Prison, Viyyur. The Government has approved the order of detention by Order No. Home-SSA4/42/2024-Home; Dated 12.02.2024; and confirmed the order of detention by order G.O. (Rt) No.1027/2024/HOME; Dated 04.04.2024.

                  8). It is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 559 of 2024 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala challenging the above detention order, and the Hon'ble Court dismissed the petition by judgment dated 21.06.2024.

                  9). It is respectfully submitted that preventive action under section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act had been taken against the appellant/accused by order No. KAAPA-13216/2020/ER, dated 21.12.2020, of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range, which ordered him not to enter into Ernakulam District for one year.

                  10). It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/accused violated the above restriction order and for that, a case in Crime 43/2021 under section 15(4) r/w 19 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was registered at Kodanadu Police Station on 28.01.2021, and a case in Crime 1367/2021 under section 15(4) r/w 19 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was registered at Kunnathunadu Police Station on 24.09.2021.

                  11). It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/accused further involved in Crime 1368/2021 under section 22(a) of the NDPS Act registered at Kunnathunadu Police Station on 24.09.2021, Crime 248/2022 under section 294(b), 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Kodanadu Police Station on 22.04.2022, and Crime 592/2022 under section 341, 323, 294(b), 506 (i), 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Kuruppampady Police Station on 29.06.2022.

                  12). It is respectfully submitted that preventive action under section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act had taken against the appellant/accused by detention order No. DCEKM/7606/2022-M7, dated 05.09.2022 of the District Magistrate Ernakulam and he was detained and kept at Central Prison, Viyyur from 01.12.2022 to 31.05.2023.

                  13). It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/accused committed heinous crimes, including murder, after being released on bail and after serving detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.

                  14). It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/accused has been involved in the following crimes pending before the various courts.

                  i. Muvattupuzha Police Station Crime No. 2801/2018 U/s 143, 148, 120B r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act reported on 04.10.2018. (The case is pending trial before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha as CC 140/2021) This case is posted to 15.06.2026.

                  ii. Kuruppampady Police Station Crime No. 1465/2018 U/s 341,323, 324, 427, 506(i), 34 of the Indian Penal Code reported on 27.12.2018. (The case is pending trial before the JFCM Court-III, Perumbavoor as CC 39/2019). This case is posted to 08.07.2026.

                  iii. Kunnathunadu Police Station Crime 1367/2021 U/s 15(4) r/w 19 of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act reported on 24.09.2021. (The case is pending trial before the JFCM Court-I, Kolenchery as CC 321/2021) This case is posted to 17.06.2026.

                  iv. Kunnathunadu Police Station Crime 1368/2021 U/s 22(a) of the NDPS Act reported on 24.09.2021. (The case is pending trial before the JFCM Court-I, Kolenchery as CC 322/2021) This case is posted to 17.06.2026.

                  v. Kodanadu Police Station Crime 248/2022 U/s 294(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act reported on 22.04.2022. (The case is pending trial before the JFCM Court-III, Perumbavoor as CC 461/2022). This case is posted to 09.07.2026.

                  vi. Kuruppampady Police Station Crime 592/2022 U/s 341, 323, 342, 94(b), 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code reported on 22.04.2022. (The case is pending trial before the JFCM Court-III, Perumbavoor as CC 225/2022) This case is posted to 22.06.2026.

                  vii. Thrissur East Police Station Crime 1993/2023 U/s 395, 414, 212, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code reported on 09.09.2023. (The case is pending as CP 72/2024 before the JFCM-1, Thrissur).

                  viii. Kodanadu Police Station Crime 505/2023 under sections 120B, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 reported on 06.10.2023. (The case is pending trial before the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as SC 99/2024). This case is posted to 11.08.2026.

                  15). It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/accused was involved in the following criminal cases, and subsequently he was acquitted in the case.

                  i. Kuruppampady Police Station Crime 1988/2016 U/s 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 308, г/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 13.06.2018 in Crl. M.C No. 3436/2018, quashed the proceedings).

                  ii. Perumbavoor Police Station Crime No. 4180/2017 U/s 120B, 323, 395, 379, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act

                  iii. Kodanadu Police Station Crime No. 748/2018 U/s 376(1), 376(2), 376(j), 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code.

                  iv. Kuruppampady Police Station Crime 178/2019 U/s 341, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                  v. Kodanadu Police Station Crime 43/2021 U/s 15(4) r/w 19 of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act reported on 28.01.2021.

                  16). It is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ernakulam dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant/accused as Crl.M.C No. 01 of 2026 by order dated 04.04.2026. The Hon'ble Court has observed that;

                  "Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence, the prima facie materials available on record, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail."

                  17). It is respectfully submitted that the place where in the murder in this case occurred is a village. The gruesome murder of the victim made the villagers panic. The majority of the residents shifted their residence temporarily from that place. The police intervened to bring those persons back to their residential place. They have conducted special camps to secure this. The people are coming back to normalcy. If bail is granted to the appellant/accused, that will affect public tranquillity over that locality, and the efforts made by the police will become futile.

                  18) It is respectfully submitted that there is cogent evidence against the appellant/accused in this case. The appellant committed the murder brutally in retaliation for his vengeance against the victim. The deceased had given a dying declaration regarding the overt act of the appellant/accused and his name.

                  19) It is respectfully submitted that, the wife and son of the deceased person in this case, are presently residing within the jurisdiction of Kottappady Police Station. They are apprehensive that, if the accused is granted bail, he may cause harm to the son as well. Therefore, they are still afraid to return to their own home.

                  20. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant/accused is a habitual offender, a KAA(P) detenu, a gang leader, and a drug addict who repeatedly engages in criminal activities along with his associates. The witnesses and residents of the crime scene locality live in constant fear of the appellant/accused since the appellant/accused belongs to the same locality. There is every chance that the appellant/accused may influence or intimidate or harm the witnesses and destroy evidence, and he may abscond, if he is released on bail. In the above-stated reasons and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2025 filed by the appellant/accused may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, the 1st accused/appellant herein has involvement in 13 serious crimes, out of which he was acquitted in five cases and eight cases are still pending against him. Therefore, his release would be fatal to the prosecution, as he is likely to repeat commission of serious offences. Therefore, the 1st accused/appellant could not be released on regular bail.

7. In the instant case, reading the prosecution records, offences alleged against the 1st accused for murder i.e. under Section 302 of IPC as well as 120B read with 34 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, are made out.

8. It is relevant to note that, the 1st accused/appellant has involvement in 13 crimes. Though, he had been acquitted in 5 cases, still 8 cases are pending against him. This would indicate that the 1st accused/appellant is a habitual offender and the report of the Investigating Officer would show that, he was a a KAAPA detenu, a gang leader and a drug addict, who repeatedly engages in criminal activities along with his associates. Therefore, the witnesses and residents of the crime scene have been living in constant fear of the appellant/1st accused and if he would be released on bail, there is likelihood of influencing, threatening and intimidating the witnesses and also manhandling and assaulting the witnesses by him, with a view to prevent adducing evidence against him. That apart, there is also likelihood of abscondence by the 1st accused/appellant. Therefore, this is a fit case where the trial is to be completed keeping the 1st accused/appellant in custody.

9. In view of the matter, the learned Special Judge is right in finding that the 1st accused/appellant could not be released on regular bail. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed, confirming the order of the Special Court.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.