The High Court of Kerala has ruled that any order in a proceeding under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act passed without hearing the victim or their dependent is “non-est in the eye of law.” Justice A. Badharudeen set aside a lower court’s order granting bail to eight accused individuals in a brutal mob lynching case, characterizing the failure to provide mandatory notice as a “very serious lapse.”
Background
The case (Crime No. 975/2025 of Walayar Police Station) pertains to the death of Ram Narayan Bhagel, a 40-year-old native of Jharkhand who had arrived in Kerala in search of employment just four days prior to the incident. On December 17, 2025, Bhagel was allegedly brutally attacked by a group as part of a “mob lynching” incident.
The investigation led to charges under Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—a provision specifically addressing murder committed by a group acting in concert on grounds such as race, caste, or place of birth—and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Palakkad, granted regular bail to eight accused persons (respondent Nos. 1 to 8) in January and February 2026. The Special Judge noted that while the incident was “heart wrenching and shocking,” further detention was not warranted for the completion of the investigation. The lower court specifically held that there was “no need to hear the submissions of the de facto complainant” because it was unlikely the accused knew the victim’s caste identity at the time of the offense.
Arguments of the Parties
The State of Kerala, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan, appealed the bail order. The Prosecution argued that the Special Judge granted bail at an “extremely premature stage,” which adversely affected the investigation of a serious mob lynching case. The State further highlighted the criminal antecedents of several accused and emphasized the total non-compliance with the mandatory notice of hearing required under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act.
The 9th Respondent, the brother of the deceased victim, supported the State’s appeal, arguing that no notice had been issued to the victim’s dependents as mandated by law.
Counsel for the accused (Respondents 1 to 8) opposed the cancellation, stating that the lower court had provided justifiable reasons for bail. They argued that many of the cited criminal antecedents were dated and that several of the accused had no prior record.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Badharudeen strongly criticized the Special Judge’s decision to bypass the victim’s right to be heard. The Court emphasized that Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, explicitly states that a victim or dependent “shall” have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding, including bail proceedings.
Refuting the Special Judge’s reasoning that the Act might not prima facie apply, the High Court stated:
“In the absence of notice and opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent, in such cases a Special Court or any other court is not empowered to take any decision in any proceedings under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.”
The Court observed that the Special Judge acted “inattentively and thoughtlessly” and “jumped into conclusion in a very mechanical manner, ignoring the statutory provisions.” On the gravity of mob lynching, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, noting:
“Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself… These extra-judicial attempts under the guise of protection of the law have to be nipped in the bud; lest it would lead to rise of anarchy and lawlessness.”
The High Court also pointed out that the lower court failed to consider the statutory presumption of ‘knowledge’ regarding caste identity under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act and the extended police custody provisions under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the common order granting bail. The Court ordered the immediate cancellation of the bail bonds and directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to surrender before the jurisdictional court within three days.
The Court concluded:
“The bail cancellation plea raised by the prosecution is sustainable on the facts of this case… the common order impugned, which has been passed without hearing the dependent of the deceased… is non-est in the eye of law and therefore, is liable to be set aside.”
The respondents were granted liberty to file fresh bail applications after their surrender. The High Court directed the Special Judge to adjudicate such applications strictly within the mandate of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, ensuring a mandatory hearing for the victim’s dependent.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of Kerala vs. Anu & Others
- Case No: CRL.A NO. 258 OF 2026
- Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
- Judgment Date: March 19, 2026
