SC/ST Act | No Bar On Granting Pre-Arrest Bail If Substantive Offence Not Found To Be Committed: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the bar against grant of anticipatory bail would not apply in cases where an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST is alleged if there is a prima facie conclusion that the substantive offence punishable by 10 years' imprisonment has not been committed.Justice Gopinath P. observed: “In other words, in cases where the allegation is that an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been committed and when this Court prima facie concludes that the substantive offence punishable with a term of imprisonment for a period of 10 years or more has not been committed, the said prima facie conclusion is sufficient to hold that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against the grant of anticipatory bail will not apply.”The Court was dealing with two criminal appeals filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeals challenged the Special Judge's order denying them anticipatory bail for allegedly committing offences under Sections 376(2)(n) [Rape] and 506 IPC [Criminal intimidation] and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.The allegation against the 1st accused was that he forced the de facto complainant to enter into a sexual relationship and continued the same. Thereafter, they lived together but subsequently withdrew his promise to marry her. The 2nd accused is alleged to have threatened her for her relationship with the 1st accused.The Court, relying on Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala, Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, found that the offence under Section 376 would not prima facie stand. It was prima facie concluded that since the de facto complainant was a married woman, and since her relationship with the 1st accused lasted a considerably long time, from 2023 to July 2025, the end of the same cannot be a ground to allege rape on false promise of marriage.The Court noted that the duration of the phonecalls made by the 2nd accused to the complainant to allegedly threaten her was quite long and, the same were made during a time when the 1st accused and her were in a relationship. It considered the possibility that the 1st accused was using her phone to talk to the 2nd accused and observed that it is doubtful that the offence under Section 506 was committed. The Court placed reliance on Rajachandrasekharan @ Babu v. State of Kerala to say that Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is not a substantive offence and found that the offence would also not be attracted in the present case.It observed:“I have already held that prima facie, the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, cannot be said to have been committed by the 1st accused. The maximum term of punishment for the offence under Section 506 IPC is seven years. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not attracted. Though Section 506 IPC is a scheduled offence for the purposes of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, the said provision has not been invoked. At any rate, I have also held that prima facie no offence under Section 506 is made out.” With these findings, the Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants on conditions.Case No: CRL.A No.1685/2025 and connected caseCase Title: Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected caseCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 587Counsel for the appellants: S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Azad Sunil, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, N.P. Asha Counsel for the respondents: George Sebastian, Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran, Renjit George (Sr. PP), Seena C. (PP)Click to Read/Download Judgment

SC/ST Act | No Bar On Granting Pre-Arrest Bail If Substantive Offence Not Found To Be Committed: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags