REDACTED vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 916 OF 2026
CRIME NO.177/2026 OF Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2026 IN CRMP NO.2 OF 2026 OF SPECIAL COURT-
OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SMT.SRUTHY K.K
SMT.P.V.UTTARA
RESPONDENTS/STATE/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME
NO.177/2026 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT), PIN - 682031
2 TIBIN XAVIER
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.XAVIER, KANNIKATTU HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682506
3 JOHNSON.K.B.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, KALLIRICKAL HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682506
4 JOSHY.K.J.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, KALIRICKAL HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682506
5 NITHIN.P.L.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.LATE LONAN, POTTAMTHAZHATHU HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682506
6 THOMAS.P.O.
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.LATE OUSEPH, POTTAMTHAZHATHU HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682506
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJEEV P.K
R2 TO R6 BY ADVS.
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.JINCY C.J.
SMT.ANJALI G.KRISHNAN
SMT. NITYA R.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2026, THE COURT
ON 08.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 2 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
CR
JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 08 day of September, 2026
Order dated 17.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.02/2026 on the files of
the Special Court for the Scheduled Castes/the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’,
hereinafter) Cases, Ernakulam, is under challenge in this appeal at the
instance of the de facto complainant in the said case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel appearing for the party respondents 2 to 6. Also heard the
learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the report and the records
submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Tracing the genesis of this case, originally, Crime
No.10/2026 of Panangad police station was registered alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 126(2),
296(b), 115(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 3 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
short, ‘the BNS’ hereinafter), against the accused persons, viz., Amal
Sukumaran, Athul Thomas, Sujith Bency, Amritha Thamby, Rinu
Varghese, Arun Suresh and Sreeraj Venu. They moved anticipatory
bail application before this Court vide B.A.Nos.564/2026, 577/2026,
608/2026 and 563/2026. The learned Single Judge of this Court
granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.4, 6 and 9 while rejecting the
anticipatory bail plea of the other accused persons, as per Annexure
VII order in the above bail application dated 11.02.2026. Challenging
the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application filed by Athul
nd
Thomas, who is the 2 accused in Annexure VII, he had approached
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as evident from Annexure R2(d) produced
on the side of the party respondents and in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5,
the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the allegations levelled by
respondent No.1, the State of Kerala in the said proceedings and in
paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it has been observed as under:
“5. This is the issue which has a larger
implication as it relates to the faith of the general public
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 4 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
in the police when they approach it with any complaint
supported by some evidence to begin with and the
police does not even bother to take the next obvious step
of at least initiating/lodging a proceeding.
6. Thus, specific instructions be taken and the
Court be informed accordingly by filing further counter
affidavit. If it transpires that there has been dereliction
of duty on the part of the prosecution/Authorities, the
Court would take a strict view of the same.”
4. It was thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed the
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3111/2026, as evident from Annexure R2(d) in
paragraph Nos.3 to 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court found as per order dated
19.02.2026 while granting bail to Athul Thomas. Thus, the present
FIR in Crime No.177/2026 of Panangad police station has been
registered based on the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Annexure R2(d) order.
5. The prosecution case in Crime No.177/2026 of Panangad police
station is that the appellant/second respondent herein, who belonged to the
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 5 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
Pulaya community in the Hindu religion, married one Mr.Sujith Bency, who
was a Christian, on 09.11.2025, and they were residing in
the house of Mr.Sujith Bency. Their marriage was not accepted by the
members of the Christian community or the church authorities. While
so, at about 1 a.m. on 05/01/2026, when she and her husband were
returning home along with his friends after attending the festival of
the Chathamma Nithyasahaya Matha Church and having dinner at the
house of one Mr.Athul, a friend of the husband of the de facto
complainant, accused No.1, who was found consuming alcohol by the
roadside near the Government Homeo Hospital on Cheppanam-
Chathamma Road, abused the de facto complainant using sexually
coloured caste slurs and caught hold of her hand. When the husband
of the de facto complainant tried to save her, accused No.1 pushed him
down. On seeing this, accused No.2, who was also consuming alcohol,
uttered obscene words and beat Mr.Athul with a beer bottle in his
hand. Accused Nos.3 to 5 beat the husband of the de facto complainant
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 6 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
and his friends with wooden sticks and a helmet. Accused No.1 beat
the husband of the de facto complainant, accused No.5 touched the
breast of the de facto complainant, and accused No.3 tore off the dress
of the de facto complainant. On this premise, the prosecution alleges
commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 74,
76, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)
(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
6. The learned Special Judge considered the bail plea along
with the objection raised by the appellant herein and the objection
raised by the prosecution and finally granted anticipatory bail to the
petitioners therein, who are respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein, on finding
that no offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act was made out in the facts
of the case prima facie .
7. While assailing the verdict impugned, the learned counsel
for the appellant argued that the Special Court failed to appreciate the
materials available including the ingredients for the offences alleged
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 7 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
by the prosecution. According to him, in the instant case, going
through the allegations raised in Annexure II complaint filed by the
appellant for the first time before the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Ernakulam at 17.26 hrs. on 05.01.2026 by post,
no allegations regarding any insult, assault or intimidation on the
basis of caste identity had been disclosed in the said complaint thereof,
the assault alleged to have been committed by accused Nos.1 to 4 in
this crime were disclosed to see the ingredients for the offences
punishable under Sections 74 and 76 of the BNS. It was thereafter,
Annexure IV complaint dated 26.01.2026 was lodged by the de facto
complainant before the Panangad police station, where the allegation
regarding calling of caste name of de facto complainant as a member
of Pulaya community of Scheduled Caste and the other overt acts were
stated. In this case, FIR was registered on 13.04.2026 at 15.59 hrs.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, apart from the
lodging Annexures IV, II and VI, the de facto complainant lodged
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 8 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
Annexure V complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam,
on 02.02.2026. Annexure VI complaint was filed before the Director of
SC/ST Commission. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that in the decision in Xxxx v. State of Kerala and Another reported in
[2022 (6) KHC 672], this Court considered in extenso a similar case
where offence under Section 354 of the IPC pari materia to Section 74
of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act was alleged
and as per the judgment, the anticipatory bail granted was cancelled
by this Court. The relevant paragraphs in the above judgment viz.,
paragraph Nos.26 to 38 read as under:
“26. Reverting the discussions as to grant of
anticipatory bail in this particular case, the law is settled
in cases involving offences under Sections 3(2)(va) and
3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act that anticipatory bail cannot
be granted in cases where prima facie case is made out.
Therefore, it is necessary to venture as to whether a
prima facie case is made out from the prosecution
allegations in this case. In this connection, I am inclined
to refer the F.I. statement given by the defacto
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 9 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
complainant. The defacto complainant would say that
she has been working as a teacher at Government Higher
Secondary School. Further she is a member of Scheduled
Caste community. There was a function on 16.04.2022 at
about 6.30 p.m. at the house of one Noorudheen by name
'Kadavu Veedu' in Nandi, Ayyappankavu under the
banner "Bavul Sangeetha Nisha' in which Smt.
Santhipriya, a singer, also was participated among
others. The book written by the defacto complainant was
announced to the public at the said function. The
participants were Civic Chandran (the accused), the
Editor of 'Padabhedam' magazine and also the members
of 'Nilanadatham', a poets' group. Her father and mother
also participated at the function. After the function, she
stayed at the house, where Civic Chandran and some
other persons also were stayed. She laid in a sofa at the
first floor. In the late morning at 6.30 a.m. on 17.04.2022
Civic Chandran (the accused) reached the room and gave
a wake-up call to her and then he said "I have published
your 2 books without the expense of at least Rupee one".
Then the defacto complainant felt shocked. Then she
found hunch of lust on the face of the accused. Soon he
said that he would kiss on the back of her neck and
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 10 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
immediately he forcefully kissed on the back of her neck.
Soon she escaped therefrom and at the time of occurrence
nobody was present at her room. Her further statement is
that she became panic and she was mentally shocked
after the occurrence. Then she informed the house owner
Noorudhin regarding the occurrence and he assured that
he would give more attention in future. According to her,
earlier Civic Chandran introduced a publisher to publish
her book and thereafter on 19.12.2021 when the camp of
poets was organised, Civic Chandran proffered liking
request to her and she refused the same. Then Civic
Chandran replied that he had sweet hearts, aged 23, 25
years. Later the accused informed the defacto
complainant that he had appointed her as the 'Readers
Editor' in the 'Padabhedam' magazine and when she
raised hesitation to accept the same, the accused
compelled her to hold the post. Thereafter, the accused
began to chat with the defacto complainant in Whats app,
as a sweet heart and she had resisted the same through
telephone. Later when the accused requested her to come
with her sweet heart to the house of the accused and the
defacto complainant informed that she had no sweet
heart, the accused requested that she should not come to
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 11 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
his house along with her husband. Precisely, the version
of the defacto complainant is that the accused, who does
not belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe,
kissed on the rear side of her neck without the consent
and with the knowledge that she is a member of
Scheduled Caste community.
27. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
accused that though the F.I. statement was lodged at a
belated stage with allegations as herein above narrated,
the same could not find a place in the ICC report. ICC
report produced as document No. 13 before the Special
Court has given emphasis in this regard. The opening
words of the report would go to show that "the defacto
complainant faced sexual harassment and mental
trauma at the hands of Civic Chandran, the Editor
'Padabhedam' magazine and "Me too" also was published
in the Whats app. Dr. Khadeeja Mumtaz, Mrudula Devi. S
and P.U. Usha were the members of ICC. The reference in
the ICC report could not be found as the actual Whats app
message given by the defacto complainant since the same
is written without reference that the same is the exact text
in first person. The allegations are stated as the summary
in the words of the ICC committee. According to the
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 12 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
learned counsel for the accused, in the ICC report the
words spoken by the accused before the alleged
occurrence is written, as one, without any compulsion
and in the ICC report, no overt act as to kissing on the
backside of the neck is stated, despite a statement that the
accused touched on the body of the defacto complainant
with lust and in an unwelcoming manner. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the accused would argue that there is
no whisper as per the statement referred in the ICC
report that the accused forcefully done the overt acts
alleged in the FIS or there is no whisper that the accused
kissed on the back of her neck. According to him, ICC
report is prior to lodging of FIR and therefore the
allegation regarding forceful kissing in the F.I.S. is an
improved version of the defacto complainant in the F.I.S.
and, therefore, the same cannot be given emphasis to find
commission of offences alleged by the prosecution, prima
facie.
28. Resisting this contention, the learned counsel for
the defacto complainant would submit that the ICC report
itself is without any authority and the so-called members
of the ICC, by a Whats app group discussion addressed
the grievance of the defacto complainant and the real
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 13 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
occurrence as stated in the F.I.S. as such was stated by
the defacto complainant before the committee. But the
committee changed the version of the defacto
complainant according to their whims and fancies and
therefore, the ICC report as well as the version of the
defacto complainant therein cannot be the verbatim
version of the defacto complainant. It is submitted further
that Annexure-VI appeal was filed by the defacto
complainant against the ICC report before the Regional
Joint Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the same is
posted for hearing. Apart from this submission, it is
specifically pointed out by Advocate Bhadra Kumari
appearing for the defacto complainant that the improper
behavior and the lust that have been continued by the
accused against the defacto complainant could be read
out from the Whats app messages already produced
before the Special Court as well as from Ext. R2(h)
produced along with the statement filed by the defacto
complainant before this Court. As per which, when the
accused knew about the seriousness of the occurrence and
the grievance of the defacto complainant, he apologised
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 14 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
to the defacto complainant and another lady, and he left
out from the Whats app group itself.
29. On perusal of the counter affidavit along with
Ext. R2(h), the submission appears to be convincing,
prima facie. That apart, it is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the defacto complainant that when the defacto
complainant filed counter to Crl.M.C. No. 1221/2022
before the Special Court, she had produced Whats app
chats between the defacto complainant and the accused
and the same would reveal the nature and attitude of the
accused towards the defacto complainant with thirst of
lust on the premise of romance. The Whats app messages
would go to show further that whenever the accused
shared messages transpiring lust, the same was resisted
by the defacto complainant.
30. Appraising the rival arguments regarding the
ICC report, it has to be held that the formation of ICC, its
authority and the finding of the ICC are under challenge
before the appellate forum. In this context, it is not fair to
act upon the same against the signed statement of the
defacto complainant lodged before the police.
31. Before having discussion on the Whats app chats
in between the accused and the defacto complainant, it is
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 15 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
relevant in the context to be on ordinary messages and
messages with erotic love and romantic sting. 'Sringara',
(means romantic love, erotic love) is one of the nine
'Rasas' (flavour). The theory of 'Rasa' revolves around
the relationship between a man and a woman. The
romantic relationship between sweet heart and sweet
heart, ie. lover and beloved, is a metaphor of the said
relationship. One could notice that love with veritable
caliber characterizes, romantic, emotional, mental and
spiritual connection accompanied some times by sexual
or physical connection and the same can be experienced
without lust. But when libido is behind the pretext of
erotic love, the same is always sexual and physically
driven without trace of love with veritable caliber. In the
former category, there may be consensus arose out of
erotic love, but in the latter, particularly when the other
side objects, then also, the propounder may go with his
remarks with thirst of lust and libido without consent of
the other. The Whats app messages relied on by the
learned counsel for the defacto complainant would depict
the latter form of approach on the part of the accused,
prima facie. Further, on perusal of the Whats app
messages in between the defacto complainant and the
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 16 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
accused produced along with the counter, it is easy to
gather that when the accused sent messages under the
latter category, the same was timely opposed and
resisted by the defacto complainant. That shows that the
defacto complainant never intended to have any sort of
relationship either of the above categories with the
accused and she intended to maintain a decent
relationship as both were litterateur.
32. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
accused that since in the ICC report there is no mention
as to forceful kiss by the accused on the back side of the
neck of the complainant, no offences under Section 354 of
I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act are made
out.
33. Whereas the learned counsel for the defacto
complainant Smt. Bhadrakumari, Advocate Nandini and
the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this
contention on urging that the statement given by the
defacto complainant in the FIS shall be given emphasis,
since the same alone is her admitted statement and the
report of the ICC does not contain either the Whats app
post or any signed statement given by the defacto
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 17 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
complainant. Therefore, the same cannot be given
emphasis in any manner, that too, at this stage (the stage
of investigation).
34. Coming to Section 354 of I.P.C., it is provided
that Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any
woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely
that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than one year but which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus
using criminal force to any woman intending to outrage
or knowing to be likely that he will thereby outrage the
modesty is an offence punishable upto 5 years and less
than one year and liable to fine. Offence punishable under
Section 354 of IPC is cognizable as well as non bailable.
35. Coming to offences under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of
the SC/ST Act, it is provided that intentionally touches a
woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual
nature and is without the recipient's consent is an offence.
36. As per Section 3(2)(va), it is provided as under:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:--(1) Whoever,
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 18 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,--
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
(2) (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule,
against a person or property, knowing that such person
is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with such punishment as specified under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall
also be liable to fine.
xxxx xxxx xxxxx"
37. Reading Section 3(2)(va) it is emphatically clear
that commission of offences specified in the schedule
would attract an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act. In order to attract the said offence,
commission of the offences punishable under the I.P.C.,
shown in the schedule appended to the SC/ST Act to be
committed by the accused against a member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe "knowing that such
person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe". In this case, offence alleged to be committed by the
accused under Section 354 of I.P.C. is one in the schedule
and therefore commission of offence under Section 354 of
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 19 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
I.P.C. would attract offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act, if the knowledge is foreseeable.
38. Therefore, it is clear that while considering the
question as to whether an accused committed offence
under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act after trial, the
word "knowing" or 'knowledge', has to be found on the
basis of the evidence tendered. When considering the
question of prima facie case for the purpose of
considering plea of bail during investigation and the
period before trial, the knowledge shall be understood
and inferred from the prosecution records. In this matter,
the accused and defacto complainant are very familiar to
each other as could be discernible from the prosecution
records and other materials. Therefore, the required
knowledge of the accused that the defacto complainant is
a member of Scheduled Caste is well discernible from the
materials available as ascribed in Section 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act.”
8. Similarly, another decision of this Court in Biju Abraham
v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 (1) KHC 721] with reference
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 20 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
to paragraph Nos.18 and 19 read as under:
“18. Indubitably Indian Society places great
emphasis on modesty of women and any act that seems
as an insult to modesty is a matter of serious concern.
The offence of outraging the modesty of a woman is not
limited to physical acts of violence but also includes any
verbal or non-verbal conduct that is intended within the
ambit of assault or use of criminal force. In recent
years, the issue of the safety and security of women has
come to the forefront in India, with large number of
cases of sexual offences against women being reported.
The legislature has taken steps to strengthen laws
against sexual offences, with stricter deterrents for rape
and sexual assault. However, sexual offences against
women continue to be a major problem in India and
efforts are still needed to ensure that laws are effectively
implemented. It is important for individuals to be aware
of their rights and for the society to take a zero-
tolerance approach towards sexual offences to arrest
the menace of sexual assault and molestation.
19. The act of outraging a female's modesty is
increasing exponentially thereby taking a toll on the
lives of women leading to mental and physical agony.
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 21 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
The word `modesty' has to be judged as a quality or
state of being modest, which is characterised by
humility, restraint, simplicity, and good taste. The act of
outraging the modesty of a woman, refers to the virtue
that attaches to a female owing to her gender and is an
attribute associated with females in general. It is a sense
of shame or bashfulness that a woman feels when faced
with any act that is intended to outrage her modesty. To
put it differently, modesty to a woman has evolved as
altogether a different concept which has very little to do
with the physique of the woman. The modesty of a
woman is intimately connected with femininity
including her sex. Modesty is not only limited to
physical modesty but it also includes moral and
psychological modesty. The moral modesty of a woman
is said to be the sense of shame or bashfulness that a
woman feels when faced with any act that is intended to
outrage her modesty. The psychological modesty of a
woman is said to be her innate sense of self-respect and
dignity. Thus the modesty of a woman is sublime and
any sort of intrusion or intercession is to be dealt with
resolutely and soberly.”
9. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kiran
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 22 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain reported in [2025 KHC Online 6765]
also pointed out with reference to paragraph No.9 to contend that
anticipatory bail granted by overlooking and disregarding the bar
under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act was a clear illegality and
jurisdictional error committed by the High Court and the same would
not sustain in the eye of law. Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act was
clear and the same would not sustain in the eye of law.
10. A detailed objection has been raised by the party
respondents 2 to 6. Paragraph Nos.6 to 13 are very relevant and the
same are extracted as under:
6. The appellant, her husband and the other 4 named
accused persons in Crime No. 10/2026 of Panangad Police
Station absconded after this incident and they filed
application for anticipatory ball before this Hon'ble
Sessions Court, Ernakulam as B.A No. 38/2026. True copy
of the said application for anticipatory bail dated
06.01.2026 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure
R2. This application was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court
by Order dated 21.01.2026 taking note of the nature of
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 23 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
allegations coupled with the criminal antecedents and the
stage of investigation and true copy of the said Order is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a).
7. The accused in Crime No. 10/2026 of Panangad
Police Station thereafter filed 4 different applications for
anticipatory ball before this Hon'ble Court. B.A No.
577/2026 was filed by the appellant and her husband. By
order dated 27.01.2026 this Hon'ble Court directed that the
appellant and her husband should not be arrested pending
disposal of their application. True copy of the said order is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(b). The
other accused persons also obtained orders preventing
their arrest during the pendency of their anticipatory bail
applications before this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter by
Annexure VII Common Order dated 11.02.2026 the
applications for anticipatory bail filed as B.A Nos.
563/2026, 564/2026, 577/2026 and 608/2026 were
disposed granting anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 4, 6
and 9 (the appellant, Arun Suresh and Sreeraj Venu). The
husband of the appellant Sujith, Amal Sukumaran, Athul
Thomas and Rinoy Varghese were found ineligible for
anticipatory bail and they offered to surrender before the
Investigating Officer. Hence the Hon'ble High Court
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 24 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
granted them one weeks' time to surrender and further
directed that if they are arrested, the bail application, if
any, moved by them, should be disposed by the learned
Magistrate as far as possible on the same day itself.
8. It is submitted that Athul Thomas, who has public
employment, back tracked from his submission recorded in
Annexure VII order that he would surrender before the
Investigating Officer and he filed Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 3111/2026 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India seeking anticipatory ball. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India by Order dated 19.02.2026 granted
protection to Athul Thomas from coercive steps and true
copy of the said order is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure R2(c). The proceedings of Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 3111/2026 reveals that the counsel for Athul
Thomas submitted during the hearing of that case on
02.04.2026 that even prior to the registration of Annexure
III FIR the appellant had filed a police complaint alleging
outraging her modesty and of belonging to SC/ST category,
which was supported by a medical report showing injury to
the appellant, but that the Police had not instituted any
proceedings, much less an FIR. It was noted by the Court
that in the counter filed by the State of Kerala there is no
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 25 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
answer to the same. In such circumstances the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that Police not even bothering to
take obvious step of at least initiating/ lodging a
proceeding on the complaint results in general public losing
their faith in police and directed the listing of the case on
08.05.2026 for filing further counter affidavit by the State
of Kerala. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
02.04.2026 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure
R2(d). The said order states that if it transpires that there
has been dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecution /
authorities, the court would take a strict view of the same. It
is submitted that the claim of lodging police complaint by
the appellant prior to the registration of Annexure III FIR
was Incorrect and misleading. The claim that her medical
report showed injury is also incorrect as her treatment
record produced along with Annexure R2 showed no
injuries. True copy of the registration card of the appellant
dated 05.01.2026 issued from the General Hospital,
Ernakulam is produced herewith and marked as Annexure
R2(e). The complaint noted in Annexure R2(e) is 'alleged
history of assault by 3 known persons today at 3 am' and
no injuries are noted.
9. It is submitted that it was only due to the
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 26 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
observations contained in Annexure R2(d) Order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.04.2026 that FIR in Crime
No. 177/2026 was registered on 13.04.2026, though
Annexure I FIR and FIS do not even refer to such
proceedings.
10. It Is submitted that the allegations raised in
Annexure I FIS of the appellant, based on which Crime No.
177/2026 is registered, are false and concocted allegations
raised only as a counter blast to registration of Crime No.
10/2026 of Panangad Police Station. The Police Officers of
Panangad Police Station were well aware of the falsity of
the allegations concocted by the appellant and her gang
and it is for that reason they did not consider it necessary to
file a separate FIR regarding the same. However, as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India sought for clarification
regarding the non-registration of FIR and observed that if
it transpires that there has been dereliction of duty on the
part of the authorities strict view would be taken, FIR in
Crime No. 177/2026 was registered. It is to be noted that the
appellant and her husband and even the other accused in
Crime No. 10/2026 of Panagad Police Station were
protected from in the ball applications filed by them and
inspite of that they had not arrest by the interim orders of
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 27 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
this Hon'ble Court from 27.01.2026 resorted to the remedies
available to them under law for having criminal
proceedings initiated against respondents 2 to 6 herein.
Their failure to do so demonstrates that they had raised the
allegation of non-registration of criminal case based on
their complaint only after Annexure R2(a) order refusing
bail to all the accused and Annexure VII order affirming the
denial of anticipatory bail to some of them.
11. The claim raised by incident occurred at 1.00 am
on 05.01.2026 when she and her husband were returning
from the Church Festival. It is respectfully submitted that
there was no event connected with the Church Festival at
such a late time that night and her claim of returning from
Church Festival at 1.00 am is false. The Notice published by
MPS Church, Chathamma with the program schedule of the
festival is produced herewith and marked as Annexure
R2(f). It can be seen from the said notice that after the Holy
Mass at 5.30 pm there was no further program in the
Church on 04.01.2026. It is the further claim of the
appellant in Annexure I FIS that she, her husband Sujith
and Athul Thomas had gone to the District Hospital for
treatment on 05.01.2026, that they then got Information
that Police had come to the house of Athul in search of him,
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 28 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
that they contacted their lawyer and, on his instructions,
switched off their phone and went away. Her FIS further
reveals that she made complaint through post to the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, which is very strange as
a lady who claims to have been physically assaulted would
not normally resort to sending a letter by post when she
could directly approach higher Police Officers with her
grievance. It is submitted that the mere sending of letter by
post, admittedly after consultation with lawyer, and
switching off the phones, clearly establishes that the
Intention of the appellant was only to create a record of a
false complaint to make out a narrative for the defence of
the accused in Crime No. 10/2026 of Panangad Police
Station. It is submitted that the allegations In Annexure II
complaint, even in its entirety, do not make out any offence
under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that in the medical records
and the complaint sent by post, the 2nd respondent had
given the time of alleged incident as 3 am and not 1 am.
Even in Annexure R2(g) the time was mentioned as 3 am.
She has deliberately changed the time in Annexure I FIS to
make up an incident in tune with the facts stated in Crime
No. 10/2026. It is submitted that the allegations contained
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 29 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
in Annexure I FIS of the appellant is a narrative falsely
drafted with legal help as a defence in Crime No. 10/2026 of
Panangad Police Station and to falsely implicated defacto
complainant in that case and those associated with him.
The allegations raised by the appellant are patently false
and motivated. The accusation made by her is false and
fabricated.
12. The claim of the appellant that she submitted
complaint before the authorities on 05.01.2026 is false.
Annexure II complaint is the first complaint which the
appellant claims was submitted by her and this complaint is
addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Ernakulam and she herself has claimed it was sent by post.
It is submitted that as per the information received by these
respondents a complaint from the appellant was received in
the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Ernakulam only on 08.01.2026. The allegations in Annexure
II complaint is contradictory to the allegations in Annexure
IV complaint and Annexure III FIS registered later. These
contradictory and Inconsistent allegations reveal the falsity
of the claims made by the appellant.
13. The claims of the appellant regarding events
alleged to have occurred on 28.01.2026 are false and made
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 30 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
by her only to give false explanation for raising allegations
against these respondents belatedly. To the best of the
knowledge of these respondents such allegations were not
raised before this Hon'ble Court though B.A No. 577/2023
filed by the appellant was pending. Such allegations do not
find a place in Annexure VIII order of this Hon'ble Court
passed on 11.02.2026. These respondents deny the
allegations raised by the appellant in Annexure V and VI
complaints. As to whether such complaints were actually
submitted by her is doubtful. Further as to whether any
action was taken pursuant to those complaints, and if so the
results thereof are all factors that the appellant has not
disclosed even in this appeal. The finding in the impugned
order that there is no prima facie case to prove commission
of offence punishable under the Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is correct and justified.
There is no merit in the grounds raised in the memorandum
of appeal.”
11. The learned Public Prosecutor placed case diary including
the statement recorded so far along with a report dated 16.07.2026 by
Suresh K.G., Assistant Commissioner of Police as under:
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 31 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
I, Suresh. K. G, Asst. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam,
is aware of the fact and circumstances of the Cri.
177/2026 U/s 115(2), 118(2), 74, 76, 351(2) and 3 (5) of
BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POLA) Act 1989 of Panangad Police Station,
Kochi City and humbly submitting the following
statement of fact.
The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant
belongs to Hindu Pulaya Community married one Mr.
Sujith Bency who is Christian. Their marriage was not
accepted by the members of the Christian community
and the church authorities. While so at about 01.00 AM
on 05/01/2026 when she and her husband were
returning to their home along with his friends after
attending the festival of the Chathamma Nithyasahaya
Matha Church, Panangad and having dinner from the
house of one Mr. Athul, friend of the husband of the
complainant, accused No. 1 and others who was found
consuming alcohol from the road side near Government
Homeo Hospital at Cheppanam - Chathamma Road
abused the de facto complainant with sexually colored
caste slur and caught hold of her hand. When the
husband of the de-facto complainant tried to save the de-
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 32 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
facto complainant accused No. I pushed him down. On
seeing this Accused No. 2 uttered obscene words and beat
Mr. Athul with the bear bottle in his hand. Accused No. 3
to 5 beat complainant's husband and his friends with
wooden stick and helmet, Accused No. I beat husband of
the de-facto complainant and accused No. 5, touched the
breast of the de-facto complainant and accused No. 3
torn off the dress of the de-facto complainant.
Based on the investigations conducted in this
case, the following facts have been revealed:
1. The complainant belongs to the Hindu Pulaya
community (Scheduled Caste).
2. The marriage between the complainant (belonging to
the SC category) and her husband (belonging to the
Christian community) was solemnized on 09.11.2025 at
Chathamma Church Hall. Panangadu
3. All the accused belong to the Christian community,
and accused numbers 1, 2, and 5 are office-bearers of
various family units (Kudumba Units).
4. The festival of Panangad Chathamma Church, which
is connected to the incident, was held on 04.01.2026
5. In the First Information (FI) statement of the
complainant, as well as in the statements given by her
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 33 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
husband and other witnesses under Section 180(1) of the
BNSS, it is stated that after the Chathamma Church
festival on 04.01.2026, the complainant, her husband,
and his friends went to the house of her husband's friend,
Athul, for dinner. While they were returning at around
01:00 AM on 05.01.2026, six persons physically
assaulted them and hurled casteist abuses.
6. However, in the statement given to the doctor when
the complainant and her husband sought medical
treatment at the Ernakulam General Hospital on
05/01/2026 at 12.00 Noon for injuries sustained during
the incident, they stated that three identifiable persons
physically assaulted them at around 03:00 AM on the
day of the incident (05.01.2026).
7. Furthermore, while the statements of the complainant,
her husband, and their friends (who are witnesses) claim
that the accused assaulted and injured them using sticks,
helmets, and beer bottles, an examination of their Wound
Certificates reveals that they sustained only
minor/simple injuries. 8. The Complainant sent a
complaint through post on 05/01/2026 to the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, regarding the
incident, she stated that around 03:00 AM on
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 34 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
05.01.2026, the accused outraged her modesty and
physically assaulted her husband and friends. However,
there is no mention of any offence under the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the said complaint.
9. Although the complainant in her FI statement, as well
as her husband and his friends in their statements, cited
the front of the Government Homeo Dispensary as the
place of occurrence, the investigation revealed that the
incident actually took place at Shappu Road Junction on
Cheppanam- Chathamma Road, approximately 100
meters south of the said location. Furthermore,
statements recorded from witnesses residing near the
Homeo Dispensary indicate that no dispute or
altercation occurred at that spot on the night of the
incident.
10. Based on the statement of Accused No. 1 in this case
that the complainant, her husband, and his friends
trespassed into his house at 02:30 AM on 05.01.2026 and
physically assaulted him and his parents, a case was
registered at the Panangad Police Station on 05.01.2026
as Crime No. 10/2026 U/s 329(4), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2),
and 118(1) of the BNS. In this case, the complainant is
arrayed as Accused No. 4, her husband as Accused No. 3,
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 35 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
and his friends as the other accused. A final report in this
matter was submitted before the Hon'ble Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam, on 30.06.2026.
11.In the anticipatory bail application filed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by Atul Thomas (Accused No. 2
in Crime No. 10/2026 registered against the
complainant, her husband, and friends), it was brought
to the attention of the Hon'ble Court that an FIR had not
been registered and investigated based on the
complainant's petition. Following observations by the
Hon'ble Court that the Station House Officer (SHO) acted
contrary to the statutory law requiring the registration
of an FIR and investigation upon receiving information
about a cognizable offence, departmental action was
initiated against the Panangad SHO and Sub-Inspector.
12.Subsequently, based on the FI statement given by the
complainant on 13/04/2026, Panangad Police Station
Crime No. 177/2026 was registered U/s 115(2), 118(2),
74, 76, 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
13. The accused, numbered 1 to 5, were granted
anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble SC/STCourt Ernakulam
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 36 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
vide Crl. MP No. 02/2026 dated 17/06/2026.
14. In the investigations conducted so far in this case, no
evidence has been obtained to substantiate the incident
as described in the FI statement of the complainant.
15. Notice issued to the Respondents (R2 to R6)
All the facts state above are true to be best my
knowledge and belief.”
12. In the investigation conducted so far in this case, no
evidence has been obtained to substantiate the incident, as described
in the First Information Statement of the complainant. It is well-
settled law that, when an offence under the SC/ST Act is made out
prima facie from the prosecution case, the bar under Section 18 would
operate. Similarly, when an offence under Section 74 of the BNS is
made out, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act would automatically be
attracted.
13. Here, in view of the report filed by the Investigating Officer,
as stated in paragraph No.14 that “ in the investigations conducted so
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 37 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
far in this case, no evidence has been obtained to substantiate the
incident as described in the FI statement of the complainant” , grant of
anticipatory bail which is put under challenge need no interference.
Hence, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 38 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
APPENDIX OF CRL.A NO. 916 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure-I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN
CRIME NO.177/2026 OF PANANGAD POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-II A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
05.01.2026 FILED BY APPELLANT AND ITS
POSTAL RECEIPT
Annexure-III TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME
NO.10/2026 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION
Annexure-IV A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
26.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT THROUGH THE THUNA PORTAL
Annexure-V TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
02.02.2026 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-VI TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
03.02.2026 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SC/ST
COMMISSION, ALONG WITH THE POSTAL
RECEIPT
Annexure-VII A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO.563
OF 2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
Annexure-VIII A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.05.2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT IN SLP (CRL.) NO.
3111/2026
Annexure-IX CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
17.06.2026 IN CRL MP NO.2/2026 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE
TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER THE SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 1989, ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES
Annexure R2 True copy of the application for
anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble
Sessons Court, Ernakulam as
CRL.A.NO.916 OF 2026 39 CNR : KLHC010506192026
2026:KER:68580
B.A.No.38/2026 dated 06.01.2026
Annexure R2(a) True copy of the Order in BA
No.38/2026 dated 21.01.2026
Annexure R2(b) True copy of the order in BA
No.577/2026 dated 27.01.2026
Annexure R2(c) True copy of the Order in Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.
3111/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India dated 19.02.2026
Annexure R2(d) True copy of the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.3111/2026
02.04.2026
Annexure R2 (e) True copy of the registration card of
the appellant dated 05.01.2026 issued
from the General Hospital,Ernakulam
Annexure R2(f) True copy of the Notice published by
MPS Church, Chathamma with the
program schedule of the festival
Annexure R2(g) True copy of the medical records and
the complaint