Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act cases, Thrissur.

“It is well settled that a place within public view is not akin to a public place. Presence of public or third parties to overhear the abusive and insulting words which would cause humiliation to victim would make even private place within public view,” Court observed.

The appellants were accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Explosives Act, and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

According to the prosecution, the accused and others allegedly trespassed into the complainant's property, set off explosive substances, and the first accused allegedly addressed the complainant by her caste name along with abusive language and threats.

The Special Court had rejected anticipatory bail on the ground that a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act was disclosed, thereby attracting the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act.

The appellants argued that they were unaware of the complainant's caste and therefore the provisions of the SC/ST Act were inapplicable.

The Court examined the prosecution allegation and noted that the accused trespassed the complainants property and used abusive words in the presence of the her husband.

The Court observed that a place “within public view” is not synonymous with a public place but noted that even a private location may fall within the provision if third parties are present and capable of hearing the caste-based insult.

The Court further observed that where several accused persons jointly participate in the abusive conduct, their presence may itself be treated as akin to the presence of members of the public or third parties capable of overhearing the humiliating remarks.

“When the accused persons are more than one and they engaged together in abusing and insulting, with intention to humiliate the victim, the presence of more than one accused persons is also akin to presence of public or third parties to overhear the insulting and intimidating remarks which would make the said place also as a place within public view.” Court noted.

The Court held that the use of the complainant's caste name in the presence of other persons, including the complainant's husband and multiple accused, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(s).

The Court noted that while actual knowledge regarding the caste is ultimately a matter of evidence at trial, for purposes of assessing a prima facie case, such knowledge may be inferred from prosecution records.

The Court further noted that the prosecution's allegation that the parties were neighbours and had previously worked together in the same political party, making it reasonable at the preliminary stage to infer knowledge of caste identity.

The Court thus held that the statutory bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act became operative and upheld the Special Court's refusal of anticipatory bail and directed the appellants to surrender before the investigating officer, failing which they could be arrested.

Case Title: Bhageesh Pooradan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: Crl.A 750/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 341

Counsel for Appellants: E.U Dhanya, Lindons C. Davis, N.s. Shamila, Chinju P. Joyies, Vinayak Manoharan P.

Counsel for Respondents: Hasna Mol N. S (PP), R Ranjith, Aiswarya Madhu