1. The sole accused in Crime No. 519/2026 of Kumarakom Police Station, Kottayam, now numbered as S.C. No. 380/2026 on the files of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 2018) [hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’ for short], i.e., the Principal Sessions Court, Kottayam has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 01.09.2026 in B.A. No. 783/2026 of that court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Despite issuance of notice to the defacto complainant/3rd respondent, the legal heir of the deceased, through the Station House Officer, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, he did not appear. Perused the records including the case diary.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act by the appellant/accused.

4. The prosecution case is that, at 2.00 a.m., on 19.05.2026, the accused/appellant herein, who does not belong either to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, due to previous animosity towards Murukan (the deceased), who was a member of Hindu Cheramar Community of Scheduled Caste, assaulted him by using a machete with intention to do away him. Thereby Murukan sustained multiple injuries including fatal injuries. Though he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, soon after the occurrence, he breathed his last at 06.30 a.m., on 20.05.2026.

5. Now the learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the order impugned, submitted that the appellant is innocent. According to him, since the investigation has been completed, the appellant/accused, who has been in custody from 19.05.2026 may be released on bail as his further custody would not be required for any purpose. He also submitted that the appellant/accused is ready to co-operate with the trial. In addition to that the learned counsel brought attention of this Court to the order impugned and read out the same. Then he zealously argued that the order impugned is per se illegal as the same does not contain the contentions raised by the appellant/accused before the Special Court/Principal Sessions Court, Kottayam or any reasons or a remote reason why the appellant/accused would not be entitled to get regular bail. Accordingly, he pressed for interference in the cryptic order to reveres the same.

6. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this case, the allegation as to the commission of the above offences could be found prima facie. Since serious injuries were caused by the appellant/accused to Murukan, the deceased, which resulted in his death, filing of final report alone would not be a ground to grant bail to the appellant/accused. It is also pointed out that the appellant/accused is a person having involvement in one more crime though he was reported to be acquitted in the said case. But the learned Public Prosecutor also expressed his concern as the impugned order does not show any reason for dismissing the bail petition.

7. Having addressed the rival submissions, I am inclined to extract the order impugned as such, since the order does not speak about the arguments rendered by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, while seeking bail for third time and the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the prosecution, for opposing bail for valid reasons. Most importantly, the order does not say for what reasons the bail application moved by the appellant/accused was dismissed for the third time. The order dated 01.09.2026, which contains only three paragraphs, is extracted hereunder:-

                  “This is the third application for regular bail moved by the sole accused, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.519/2026 of Kumarakom Police Station, registered under Section 103(1), 238(a), 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 2015).

                  2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has been completed and the final report has been filed before this court and the court has taken cognizance of the case as S.C. No.380/2026. The report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottayam confirms the same.

                  3. The defacto complainant, Arjun, who is the son of the deceased, appeared in person before this court.

                  In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and the report, this petition is dismissed.”

8. It is a well settled law that when bail plea would be raised by an accused in a criminal case involving non-bailable offence/offences, where grant of bail is the discretion of the court, for adjudicating the question as to whether the bail is to be granted or not, the contentions raised by both sides to be addressed based on the prosecution materials, for the purpose of either allowing or dismissing the bail application on merits, by exercising the discretionary power of the court.

9. Here as already pointed out, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused could be found in the order impugned. Similarly, the order dated 01.09.2026 does not depict any valid, analytic, cognitive and syllogistic reasons pointed out by the Public Prosecutor or found by the court to deny bail, though submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor regarding filing of final report had been incorporated in the impugned order. It is interesting, rather shocking to note that merely acting on the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that the investigation had been completed and the final report had been filed before the Special Court and taking note of numbering of the case as S.C.No.380/2026, the bail application was dismissed, without assigning any reasons, why the bail plea would fail. In this connection, it is worthwhile to mention that when a plea of bail would be raised before a court of law, the court must hear and record the submissions and contentions advanced by the petitioner and the prosecution or any other party/parties to the bail application. Thus the court shall advert to the contentions and to record reasons in writing, either to grant or to dismiss the bail petition. As already pointed, the impugned order does not show these vital inputs. Thus the order found to be too cryptic, mysterious, enigmatic, arcane and murky without any reasons.

10. Coming back, here the appellant/accused has been in custody from 19.05.2026. Going through the statements given by the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy examination on the body of Murukan, the deceased, on 20.05.2026, he had noted 27 injuries, out of which, injury Nos. 14, 15 and 19 were found to be fatal and according to the Doctor, the same caused the death of Murukan. Thus the prosecution case is made out, prima facie. However, the factual position is that the appellant/accused has been in custody from 19.05.2026 where final report already filed. In such view of the matter, further custody of the appellant/accused for the purpose of investigation is not required and therefore, in the interest of justice, he can be enlarged on bail, by setting aside the order impugned.

11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the appellant/accused shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i. The appellant shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special court concerned.

ii. The appellant shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the trial and shall be available for trial.

iii. The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iv. The appellant shall not, follow, meet, threaten, disturb or create any hazards to the defacto complainant and his family members, in any manner, during the currency of bail hereby granted, if any such event reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted at the instance of the Special Court or by this Court.

v. The appellant shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of the bail hereby granted and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same alone shall be a reason to cancel the bail.

vi. Violation of any of the conditions imposed shall result in cancellation of bail hereby granted.

Registry is directed to forward copy of this judgment to all criminal courts in the District Judiciary for follow up while considering bail applications.