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 04.02.2026 in Crl.M.C. No.3/2026 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Nedumangad, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1665/2025 of Medical College Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant materials available.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘defacto complainant’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution case is that, on 27.11.2025 at 5.30 pm the defacto complainant, a Medical Officer, belongs to scheduled caste community, while driving her car to Ulloor Junction, a two wheeler parked on the road in front of Santhosh Nagar causing hindrance to her car. When she was requesting the locals to remove the two wheeler from the way, the first accused restrained the person from removing the vehicle. It is alleged that second accused, who is the brother of the first accused uttered abusive words and made castiest remarks against the defacto complainant and 3rd accused kicked her father and other accused have also assaulted her father. It is further alleged that 2nd accused pressed her right breast and all the accused hurled castiest words against her. It is alleged that at about 7.30 p.m on 27.10.2025, the second accused and his friends have insulted and teased the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused persons, who do not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community intentionally insulted and intimidated the defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community. On this premise, initially the prosecution  alleges  commission  of  offences  punishable under Sections 75(1)(i), 75(i)(iv), 75(2), 75(3), 115(2), 296(b) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’ for short] and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the accused persons. During investigation, the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act was deleted and now the investigation is going on for the other offences.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that, the learned Special Judge went wrong in dismissing the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellants, where the offence are not primarily made out. He read out the First Information Statement of the defacto complainant as a whole in support of his contentions. According to him, even though the occurrence was at about 7.30 hours on 27.10.2025, the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant was recorded only on 12.12.2025. Thereafter on 27.11.2025, there was an altercation between the defacto complainant and accused persons in the presence of the people in the locality and Annexure-1 complaint was lodged by one Sukumari, who witnessed the occurrence against the defacto complainant and her father and the same was acted upon by the Police and as per Annexure-2, the status of the same was recorded as ‘closed’. Thereafter, this complaint was loged by the defacto complainant as against the accused persons. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the entire dispute arose out of some vehicle block occurred on a narrow street and exchange of words between the parties. Therefore, none of the ingredients for the offences alleged are made out. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is not barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the case diary along with the FIS and also statements of the witnesses. According to him, in the statements given by two witnesses, who were the neighbors of the parties did not disclose the occurrence as stated by the defacto complainant.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant opposed the bail application on the submission that the prosecution materials established the offences alleged, prima facie. He also filed a written objection opposing  grant  of  bail.  According  to  him,  the  defacto complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community has been working as a Casualty Medical Officer at IMV Medical Hospital, Venjavode, Sreekariyam and at about 5.30 p.m. on 27.11.2025, while the defacto complainant has been driving her car through the road within the residential association, a two-wheeler deliberately kept blocking the narrow pathway and when the defacto complainant requested the local residents to remove the vehicle, the 1st accused prevented the owner from removing the vehicle and the accused persons intentionally created a confrontation. Further, the 2nd accused hurled caste based abusive words against the defacto complainant in public place, fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Caste community. The 3rd accused also physically assaulted the father of the defacto complainant by kicking him and thereby caused injuries and Annexure.R3(a) is the OP ticket issued to the father of the defacto complainant, showing casualty treatment at General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, grant of anticipatory bail could not be considered and the order is liable to be sustained.

8. On perusal of the FIS given by the defacto complainant dated 12.12.2025, she had multiple allegations and the first allegation is that, at about 7.30 hours on 27.10.2025, when she parked her car at the road near Kochulloor, one among the boys sitting at the scooter workshop, called her caste name and abused her. Then, one among them followed the defacto complainant and reached near her house and returned back. Later, she identified the person who followed her as the brother of Manoj (A1) and the prosecution identified him as the 2nd accused. Further allegation is that, at about 5.30 p.m. on 27.11.2025, when the defacto complainant was traveling in her car, she found a scooter, which caused obstruction to move and she requested the help of people in the locality, when one among them attempted to move the two wheeler and the same was objected by the 1st accused and the 2nd accused made abusive comments against her, after calling her by her caste name. Further allegation is that, when her father intervened in the quarrel, accused Nos.1 and 2 manhandled him. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant attempted to get out of the car, the 2nd accused, who is the brother of the 1st accused, put his hands through the window of the car and caught hold on her breast and put her on the seat and then she called the Police.

9. A conjoint reading of the prosecution materials along with the statements of the witnesses as well as Annexures- 1 and 2, wrongful restrainment of the defacto complainant by the 1st accused and creating of confrontation could be seen, prima facie. The 2nd accused used caste based abusive words to abuse and assault the defacto complainant in a public place and caught hold on the breast of the defacto complainant. The allegation against the 3rd accused is that, he had physically assaulted the father of the defacto complainant by kicking him and thereby caused injuries. On perusal of Annexure-R3(a), a copy of OP ticket of the father of the defacto complainant by name Purushothaman P.C, aged 66 years, assault by a gang of autodrivers could be seen, though no external injuries noted. Thus, the allegations against the 2nd accused that he caught hold on the breast of the defacto complainant is a very serious offence. Therefore, the same could not be viewed so lightly. It could be seen that, Annexure-1 complaint was lodged by one Sukumari on 27.11.2025 and after about seven weeks of the first occurrence and more than about two weeks of the 2nd occurrence, the complaint herein was lodged.

10. Thus, taking into consideration the particular facts of this case, I hold that the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the 2nd appellant/2nd accused must fail and the impugned order to that extent stands confirmed, while granting anticipatory bail to appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3, after upsetting the order impugned to that extent, on conditions.

                  In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The order impugned stands confirmed as far as rejecting anticipatory bail to the 2nd accused and the anticipatory bail plea 2nd appellant/2nd accused is dismissed. Further, the impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail to accused Nos.1 and 3 stands set aside and accused Nos.1 and 3 shall be released on pre-arrest bail on the following conditions:-

                  i) The appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 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 12.00 p.m. for two days. In the event of the arrest of appellant Nos.1 and 3, they shall be produced before the Special Court on the date of arrest itself.

                  ii) On such production the Special Court shall release appellant Nos.1 and 3 on bail on them executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

                  iii) The appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper the evidence. They shall cooperate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

                  iv) The appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special  Court  without  prior  permission  of  the court.

                  v) The appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 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 appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 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.