The Supreme Court of India, on October 31, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner, Sidhan @ Sidharathan, in a criminal case from Kerala.
A divisional bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the Special Leave to Appeal, setting aside a Kerala High Court order that had previously denied the bail. The apex court’s decision was based on its findings that the victim’s injuries were “simple in nature” and, crucially, that the provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989, appeared to have been added by police “in zeal” despite the complainant making “no allegation of any caste slur” in the initial complaint.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court challenging the final judgment and order dated 08-07-2025, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in BA No. 6185/2025, which had rejected his plea for anticipatory bail.
The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 372/2025, registered for offences punishable under Section 126(2), 118(1), 296(a), and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the “gist of the prosecution case” recorded in the order, it was alleged that on 16.04.2025, the petitioner-accused “blocked the complainant on the road and threatened him and assaulted him with a chopper resulting in serious bleeding injuries.” It was further alleged that as the “complainant attempted to defend himself using both hands,” the petitioner “inflicted additional injuries resulting in severe bleeding.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the wound certificate produced with the petition, made several key observations.
The bench noted that the wound certificate “discloses that the victim himself was under alcoholic influence and the alleged injuries sustained by him is simple in nature.” In view of these facts, the Court stated, “we are of the view that petitioner would be eligible for grant of the relief sought for.”
The Court then addressed the application of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”) to the case. The judgment noted that the High Court was likely influenced by the inclusion of these charges, which carry an “embargo placed under Section 18 of the Act” against granting anticipatory bail.
However, the Supreme Court expressed surprise at the inclusion of the Act’s provisions. The bench observed: “It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’).”
The Court found that this inclusion was not supported by the primary evidence, stating, “However, the complaint filed at the first instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by petitioner accused.”
Concluding its analysis, the bench held, “Hence, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised in this petition.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the petition and ordered that the petitioner, Sidhan @ Sidharathan, “be released on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
