1. The order dated 07.07.2026 in B.A.No.7 of 2026 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST (PoA) Act'), Nedumangad is under challenge in this appeal, which has been filed at the instance of the appellant, who is the third accused in Crime No.323 of 2026 of Vilappilssala Police station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 (defacto complainant) 4 and 5, the aggrieved persons, who had filed a detailed objection opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Perused the verdict under challenge and the case diary.

3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 191(3), 296(b), 332(c), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS'), as per the FIR registered on 22.05.2026. Thereafter, offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act were added.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant herein is arrayed as the third accused and the appellant and the defacto complainant had maintained a good relationship between them and as per the allegations in the FIR, Ahalia (the appellant herein) had told some bad things about the defacto complainant to Aravind Prasanth and on coming to know the same, the defacto complainant questioned the appellant regarding the same and because of the said animosity, accused Nos. 1 to 3 trespassed upon the residence of the defacto complainant and assaulted him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Aravind Prasanth referred in the FIS, is a person to whom against the appellant/3rd accused lodged Annexure A2 complaint under the POSH Act as on 04.05.2026. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution case lacks substratum, as the alleged assault occurred after trespassing upon the house of the defacto complainant and, therefore, the same was not within public view, so as to attract the offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant, seeks interference in the impugned order to set aside the same and to grant bail to the appellant.

5. However, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, who filed a detailed objection on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5, namely, the defacto complainant and his parents respectively, would contend that prima facie, the offences are made out including the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is totally prohibited in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. He also pointed out that in this occurrence, the defacto complainant and his father sustained injuries and they underwent treatment and he has shown medical documents to substantiate the same, which in fact, otherwise form part of the case diary.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant produced the case diary along with the statement of the defacto complainant, including his additional statements recorded twice, after recording the FIS, along with medical documents to show that some minor injuries sustained by the defacto complainant and his father while opposing the incident.

7. In this case, the FIR was registered on 22.05.2026 based on the statement recorded at 14.00 hours on 22.05.2026 as that of the defacto complainant. According to the defacto complainant, Akhil along with Ahalia (the appellant herein), who is a nearby resident of the defacto complainant (Akhil Raj), along with five others, assaulted him in front of his house at 9.00 p.m., on 16.05.2026. His version further is that while he was in front of his house, Kiran and Akhil reached on a motor bike and Ahalia, along with three persons reached on another motor bike. Thereafter, Kiran entered into the house and caught on hold his neck and brought him outside, then he abused him and beat on his left eye and left cheek. Soon Akhil beat on his face by using his hand and kicked on his lower part of abdomen and left thigh. Further, he kicked him. Soon a person, whose identity could be recognised by sight, having beard, beat on his face and chest. Then Kiran, by using an iron like weapon beat on his left ribs. While so, Ahalia (the appellant herein) called him, his caste name and abused him. He had also given statement that two others also beat on his face and chest. Soon his mother (Lathika Kumari) and brother came out from the house and then Kiran abused his mother by calling her caste name and beat her. When his father (Babu Raj) reached the place of occurrence, Kiran and Akhil abused him, and kicked on his lower part of abdomen. Then he was taken into the house by his mother. In the additional statement, he disclosed that the accused persons are not members of SC/ST community, while the defacto complainant as a member of the Hindu Pulaya community of Scheduled Caste, insulted, abused and assaulted him with knowledge that he is a member of Scheduled Caste community.

8. It is the well settled law that when the prosecution case discloses prima facie the offence or offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, grant of anticipatory bail is totally prohibited, even though the absence of materials to find prima facie case to grant of bail could be considered. In the instant case, as far as the appellant/3rd accused is concerned there is no allegation that she did anything other than calling caste name of the defacto complainant and insulting and abusing him on the said premise, but all the accused reached the place of occurrence after sharing common intention.

                  9. It is relevant to note that the medical documents produced in respect of Akhil Raj and Babu Raj show mild redness over the left eye, contusion over the left chest and tenderness over the left side of the face in the case of Akhil Raj, and some minor injuries in the case of Babu Raj.

                  10. Having gone through the FIS, the involvement of all accused in the crime, including the appellant is prima facie evident. Since the place of occurrence is outside the house of the defacto complainant, where more than one accused were present, the place could not be held as a place not 'within the public view'.

                  11. Having considered the above aspect, this Court is of the view that, in this case, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(PoA) Act would apply and therefore, grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered. Additionally, the prosecution records would show prima facie, the non-bailable offences under Section 74 and 118(1) of the BNS. In such view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed, with specific direction to the appellant/3rd accused to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and on failure to do so, the investigating officer shall proceed to arrest the appellant/3rd accused, in accordance with law.

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