Kerala High Court grants bail in SC/ST Act murder case, criticises Sessions Court’s reasonless rejection order

The appellant, Renjin K. Mathew, was the sole accused in Crime No. 519/2026 of Kumarakom Police Station, later numbered as S.C. No. 380/2026 before the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

He was accused of offences under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that at approximately 2:00 a.m. on 19 May 2026, the appellant, who did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, assaulted Murukan, a member of the Hindu Cheramar Scheduled Caste community, with a machete due to prior animosity.

Murukan sustained multiple injuries and died at 6:30 a.m. on 20 May 2026 while undergoing treatment.

The appellant had been in custody since 19 May 2026.

His third regular bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Kottayam, was dismissed on 1 September 2026.

The Sessions Court’s order merely noted that the investigation had been completed, the final report had been filed, and the case had been taken on file as S.C. No. 380/2026; it did not record the parties’ submissions or reasons for rejecting bail.

The deceased’s legal heir, who had been served notice under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, did not appear.

Whether the Sessions Court’s order dismissing the appellant’s third bail application was legally sustainable despite failing to record the parties’ submissions and reasons for refusing bail?

Whether the appellant, who had remained in custody since 19 May 2026 and against whom the final report had already been filed, was entitled to regular bail despite the prima facie case involving fatal injuries and an offence under the SC/ST Act?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail, along with the offences alleged under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It held that, while deciding a non-bailable offence, the court must consider the submissions of the accused, the prosecution and any other relevant party, examine the prosecution materials, and record valid, analytical and intelligible reasons either for granting or refusing bail.

The Court also recognised that completion of investigation and filing of the final report do not automatically entitle an accused to bail, but they are relevant to determining whether further custodial detention is necessary.

Notice to the victim or legal heir was considered in accordance with Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act.

The High Court found that the Sessions Court’s three-paragraph order did not disclose the appellant’s submissions, the prosecution’s grounds of opposition, or any reasoned assessment of the relevant bail factors.

Merely recording that the investigation was complete and that the final report had been filed could not constitute a judicial determination of why bail should be refused.

The order was therefore held to be cryptic and legally deficient.

On the merits, the High Court examined the autopsy material and noted that the deceased had sustained 27 injuries, including injuries 14, 15 and 19, which the doctor identified as fatal.

Accordingly, the Court found that a prima facie prosecution case existed.

Nevertheless, the appellant had remained in custody since 19 May 2026, the investigation was complete, and the final report had been filed; consequently, his further custody was not required for investigation.

Balancing the prima facie seriousness of the allegations against the absence of any continuing investigative need, the Court considered release on stringent conditions appropriate.

He was directed to execute a bond for ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount.

The conditions included non-interference with witnesses or evidence, cooperation with the trial, prohibition against inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts, prohibition against contacting or harassing the de facto complainant and his family, and a prohibition against involvement in any other offence.

Violation of the conditions could result in cancellation of bail.