1. This is an appeal against an order rejecting the appellants’ application for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Appellants are the accused in Crime No.1292 of 2025 of Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram. Their application for grant of anticipatory bail filed before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Manjeri was dismissed by the impugned order dated 05.12.2025. This appeal is in challenge of the said order.

3. The prosecution alleged that, during the period from 19.09.2025 till 24.09.2025, the victim was restrained, stripped and subjected to ragging by the accused in the college hostel of the MES College, Ponnani. Initially, the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 as well as Sections 126(2) and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alone were incorporated all of which were bailable offences. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’) was also incorporated, which is a non-bailable offence. Hence appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was declined.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice to the victim was served on 22.12.2025, there is no representation or appearance on his behalf.

5. Appellants are alleged to have ragged the victim during the period from 19.09.2025 to 24.09.2025 at the college hostel of MES College, Ponnani. The appellants are the senior students of the said college, and they are teenagers. The victim, who joined the said college, was allegedly subjected to ragging, and on 28.09.2025 he filed a complaint to the Principal, which is produced as Annexure-A1. On a reading of the said complaint, it is noticed that there is no reference to the victim being a member of the Scheduled Caste or that the appellants were aware about the victim being a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The Principal forwarded the complaint to the Police, based on which, an FIR was registered on 07.10.2025. In the said FIR also, there is no reference to any knowledge of the accused regarding the victim being a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, upon instructions, submitted that in the statement of the victim taken under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it was stated that the accused, while they were ragging him, had enquired about the quota under which the victim had obtained admission in the college. It is alleged that, in reply, the victim had conveyed to them that he belongs to the SC/ST category and had obtained admission to the college under that category.

7. Though under the provisions of the SC/ST Act anticipatory bail cannot be granted, in instances where a prima facie case under the said Act is not made out, the Court is entitled to consider the grant of anticipatory bail as held in the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others [2020 (4) SCC 727].

8. In the instant case, the only non-bailable offence alleged is that under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

9. Even though the complainant had not initially alleged that the accused were aware about the victim being a member of the Scheduled Caste, during the course of investigation, it transpired that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste community and that he had informed the accused about it. In Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Another [2024 KHC OnLine 6451], the Supreme Court has observed that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court has to bear in mind that the offence under the SC/ST Act is committed when the alleged offending act was committed not only with the knowledge that the accused was a member of the Scheduled Caste community but also with an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

10. In the instant case, even if the prosecution allegations are admitted for arguments sake, still, there is nothing prima facie to indicate that there was any intention or mens rea on the part of the accused to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste. Of course, those are matters for the investigating officer to identify during the course of investigation. The fact that neither in the complaint initially given or in the FIR, there was no reference to any knowledge of the accused regarding the caste of the victim or even any communication of the caste to the accused, prima facie an offence under SC/ST Act is not seen made out.

11. As noted earlier, the appellants are all teenagers and are students. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the young age as well as the absence of any allegation initially made by the victim regarding the knowledge of the accused about the caste of the victim, I am satisfied that the appellants can be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions.

12.    Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri in Crl.M.C. No.1193 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025 is hereby set aside and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.1292 of 2025 of Ponnani Police Station, on the following conditions:

                  (a)      Appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.01.2026 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.

                  (b)      If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the appellants, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

                  (c)      Appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co- operate with the investigation.

                  (d)      Appellants shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or his family members.

                  (e)      Appellants shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

                  In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.