In a pivotal judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice C.S. Sudha, granted pre-arrest bail to the third accused, Sarath K.S., in a case alleging caste-based abuse and assault under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the term allegedly used by the accused did not qualify as a casteist slur under the Act and that the incident stemmed from a personal dispute rather than caste animus.
The case, Crl. Appeal No. 2385 of 2024, revolved around a complaint filed by Vinod Kumar P.V., a member of the Pulaya community, alleging physical assault and caste-based insults by Sarath K.S. and two others.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on November 12, 2024, in Chelamattam Village, Ernakulam District. According to the First Information Statement (FIS), the altercation arose from a personal feud regarding damages to a motorbike belonging to the victim’s brother-in-law, Abiraj. The situation escalated when the accused allegedly hurled caste-related abuses, physically attacked Vinod Kumar and Abiraj, and caused injuries with a sharp object.
The Special Court for SC/ST Act cases in Ernakulam had previously denied pre-arrest bail to the third accused, invoking the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, which prohibits anticipatory bail in cases involving atrocities against Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Interpretation of Alleged Casteist Slur: Whether the term used (“പുലയന്റെ മകൻ,” or “son of a Pulayan”) constitutes an intentional casteist insult under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Public View Requirement: Whether the alleged abuse occurred in a public setting, as mandated under the SC/ST Act.
3. Motivation of the Act: Whether the assault was motivated solely by the victim’s caste identity.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Sudha emphasized that not every insult or assault involving a Scheduled Caste member constitutes an offense under the SC/ST Act unless motivated by caste-based intent. The Court made the following key observations:
– Personal Dispute: The Court noted that the altercation was rooted in a personal conflict over vehicle damage rather than any caste-related hostility. Referring to precedents such as Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the judgment highlighted that the SC/ST Act aims to prevent caste-based atrocities and is not applicable to ordinary personal disputes.
– Non-Casteist Nature of the Term: The Court examined the term used and concluded that its literal meaning referred to lineage rather than caste. The accused’s actions were not shown to have any intent to humiliate the victim based on caste identity.
– Lack of Public View: The alleged abusive language was not used in a public setting. Justice Sudha pointed out that the SC/ST Act specifically requires that the insult occur in “public view” to establish an offense under Section 3(1)(r).
The judgment further clarified that these observations were made solely for deciding the bail application and that the trial court would evaluate evidence independently.
Final Decision
Setting aside the Special Court’s denial of pre-arrest bail, the High Court granted conditional relief to Sarath K.S. The conditions include:
1. The accused must cooperate with the investigation.
2. He must surrender his passport or file an affidavit stating he does not possess one.
3. He is prohibited from leaving the country without prior permission.
4. He must not intimidate or influence witnesses.
Justice Sudha emphasized that the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A does not apply in this case due to the lack of prima facie evidence of casteist intent.
Representation and Case Details
– Appellant: Sarath K.S., represented by advocates Mini V.A. and Ross Ann Babu.
– Respondent: The State of Kerala, represented by Sheeba Thomas, Public Prosecutor.
– Case Number: Crl. Appeal No. 2385 of 2024.
