Crl.Appeal No.528 of 2025 1 2025:KER:27529 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 528 OF 2025 CRIME NO.108/2025 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 IN MC NO.6 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA)ACT, 1989, NEDUMANGAD. APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED: RAMACHANDRAN NAIR K, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, 'THIRUVATHIRA’, KANYARUKUZHI, MITHIRMALA P.O., KALLARA, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN – 695610. BY ADVS. D.KISHORE MEERA GOPINATH R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA) ANANT KISHORE RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. Crl.Appeal No.528 of 2025 2 2025:KER:27529 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PIN – 695608. 3 ANU S/O. ANIL KUMAR, ASWATHI BHAVAN, CHIRAKONAM, MULAYILKONAM, MITHIRMALA, KALLARA, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM, PIN – 695610. SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Appeal No.528 of 2025 3 2025:KER:27529 C.S.SUDHA, J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.528 of 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April 2025 JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act) has been filed by the appellant/accused in crime no.108/2025 of Pangode police station, aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition under Section 482 of BNSS, namely, M.C.No.6/2025 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for the trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Nedumangad, seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there is delay of 7 days in giving the complaint to the police. The FIR does not say that the alleged abuse took place in the presence of others. It was also pointed out that there was an earlier case registered at the instance of the third Crl.Appeal No.528 of 2025 4 2025:KER:27529 respondent/victim that is, S.C.No.70/2013 in which case the applicant/accused has been acquitted. Hence, he canvasses for a pre-arrest bail. 3. The learned public prosecutor opposes the request for pre-arrest bail and submits that a reading of the FIS will clearly show that the incident took place within public view and therefore, the trial court was right in dismissing the application. There is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court, submits the prosecutor. 4. Notice has been served on the third respondent/victim, who is also present in person before the Court. Heard both sides. 5. During the course of the arguments the case diary was handed over to me, which contains the FIS. On going through the FIS, it is seen that the alleged abuse took place in the presence of others on a public road and therefore, prima facie an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act is made out. That being the position, the trial court was right in dismissing the request for Crl.Appeal No.528 of 2025 5 2025:KER:27529 pre-arrest bail on the ground that the bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act is attracted. The other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be considered as the application for pre-arrest bail itself is not maintainable in view of Section 18 and 18A of the Act. That being the position, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms