SMITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) has been filed by the petitioners/accused nos.1, 2 & 6 (A1, A2 & A6) in crime no.200/2025, Nedumkandam police station, aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition under Sec. 482, BNSS, namely, Crl.M.C. No.128/2025, on the file of the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, seeking pre-arrest bail.

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/A1, A2 & A6 that the bar under Sec. 18 and 18A of the Act will not be attracted as the appellants were unaware that the 3rd respondent(R3)/informant/injured is a member of the Scheduled Caste community as her father is a Christian and as she is married to a Christian. The present crime is the counter case of crime no.199/2025, Nedumkandam police station, in which the 1st appellant/A1 herein is the informant/injured. The said crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Ss. 269(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 75(1)(iv), 79 and 3(5) BNS. There were civil disputes relating to the resort where the incident took place. It was in the said background the incident took place. Hence, relying on the dictum in XXXX v. State of Kerala, 2022 KHC 1001, the learned counsel for the appellants canvassed for a pre-arrest bail on the premise that the trial court erred in dismissing the application.

(3.) The request for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who submitted that R3/informant/injured sustained grievous injuries and has been admitted in the ICU. The investigation has revealed commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 109(1) BNS also and hence the said Sec. has also been incorporated and investigation is progressing. A3 to A5 in the crime have already been arrested and remanded. Their bail application has been dismissed by the trial court. The arrest of the appellants/A1, A2 & A6 is necessary as custodial interrogation is required for recovery of the weapons used in the crime. The trial court has rightly found that the application for pre-arrest bail is hit by the bar contained under Ss. 18 and 18A of the Act. There is no infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court, argued the prosecutor.