1. The appellants are accused in Crime No.2665/2025 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. They assail order of the learned Special Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2410/2025 dated 09.01.2026, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel who appeared for the de facto complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from the FIS is that at about 11.00 p.m. on 09.12.2025, i.e., the day of election for local bodies, one Riyas, who is the 2nd accused along with the other accused persons, who do not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, reached the office of the de facto complainant and abused the de facto complainant, who is a member of the Parava community along with others by stating that none of the members of the Parava colony would be spared. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 296(b) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’, by the accused persons.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in fact, some dispute arose on the date of local body election between the workers of two political parties and the same led to registration of this crime. It is also submitted that use of a vehicle against the restrictions of the election commission, nearby election booth, and questioning of the same by the appellants led to difference of opinion and out of the same, a false case has been foisted incorporating SC/ST (POA) Act offences to detain the appellants in custody without any basis. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the ingredients necessary to attract the offences are not made out prima facie and this case was registered against the appellants, who are supporters of the opposition party, in fact, one arose out of political rivalry in between the ruling party as well as the opposition. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for interference in the order impugned and grant of pre-arrest bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor placed the FIS as well as the wound certificate pertaining to the de facto complainant, Nikhil, who had given the FIS which led to the registration of the crime, and opposed bail on the submission that the alleged offences would attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the grant of bail to the accused is not warranted. However, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that, insofar as the allegation regarding  calling  of  caste  name  is  concerned,  the same is stated only against the 2nd accused/2nd appellant. It is pointed out that accused No.5, Ajimon M.A. has criminal antecedents, as under:

                 

6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant zealously opposed bail on the submission that the ingredients necessary to attract the offences are made out prima facie, therefore, grant of bail to the accused persons is not warranted as the same is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. On perusal of the FIS, it could be seen that there was difference of opinion between the party representing the de facto complainant and the accused persons in connection with local body election which held on 09.12.2025 and it was thereafter, while the de facto complainant along with Anandu, Akhil, Amal and Anandu Mohan were sitting in the election committee office, Riyas along with another person came and called their caste name and abused and uttered that none of the members of the Parava colony would be spared. When Aji and Najeeb reached the place, Najeeb beat the de facto complainant by using an iron rod and when de facto complainant attempted to rescue himself, Abins restrained him and then Shafi handed over a reaper at the hands of Riyas and uttered filthy language and Riyas beat on the back side of the head of the de facto complainant. During this time, Aji threatened the de facto complainant stating that thereafter the members of Parava community would see a war. The wound certificate of Nikhil would show certain minor contusions after the occurrence.

8. In the instant case, even though there are allegations, it is seen that the entire case emerges from political rivalry that occurred on the date of local body election in between two rival political parties. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have a case that they also made complaint regarding violation of election rules, though no crime was registered against the same.

9. Having considered the factual matrix involved in this case, which arose out of political rivalry, that too on the date of election, the prosecution case and the allegations would require investigation to find its truth. Thus, prima facie, the allegations raise some doubts. In such view of the matter, the appellants can be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing conditions. Even though the involvement of accused No.5 in three more crimes is a negative factor, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, in two of the cases, accused No.5 was acquitted/quashed and copies of the verdict also have been produced by the learned counsel. In the said circumstances, in order to avoid discrimination among the accused on the same footing, they can be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

                  i.        The appellants/accused shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today. On such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate them and effectuate recovery, if any, in between 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. for two days. In the event of the arrest of the appellants/accused, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

                  ii.       The appellants/accused shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

                  iii.       The appellants/accused shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper the evidence. They shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

                  iv.      The appellants/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without prior permission of the court.

                  v.       The appellants/accused 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.

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