Presence Of Third Parties To Overhear Abusive Words Makes A Private Place Within Public View Under SC-ST Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the presence of public or third parties to overhear the abusive and insulting words which would cause humiliation to the victim would make even a private place within public view under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Court observed that when more than one accused person is engaged in hurling insults, their joint presence is akin to members of the public or third parties overhearing the remarks, thereby establishing a prima facie offence under the special statute.

Consequently, the Bench dismissed a criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail filed by two individuals accused of trespassing into a woman's courtyard, detonating explosives, and shouting caste-based slurs, holding that the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail applies absolutely when a prima facie case is made out.

The Bench of Justice A Badharudeen held, "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. That apart, 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."

Advocate E.U. Dhanya appeared for the Appellants, while Public Prosecutor Hasna Mol N.S. appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The criminal appeal arose from a case registered at the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur against two appellants who were arraigned as accused numbers one and two. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with six other identifiable persons, trespassed into the courtyard of the de facto complainant's residence and triggered explosions using explosive substances. When the de facto complainant emerged upon hearing the sound, the first appellant allegedly hurled abusive words and insulted her by calling out her caste identity.

He further threatened the de facto complainant and her husband with dire consequences. Consequent to these events, the appellants were charged under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Indian Explosives Act, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants approached the Special Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Special Judge on the ground that a prima facie case was established, thereby attracting the statutory bar against pre-arrest bail. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants preferred the instant appeal before the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellants contended that they had no personal knowledge regarding the caste identity of the de facto complainant, and therefore, the essential ingredients to attract the offences under the special statute were missing. It was further argued that all other offences under the general penal law were bailable in nature, and that the entire incident was the outcome of intense political rivalry between two local political factions, which warranted a lenient view.

Conversely, the de facto complainant vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the parties were nearby residents, knew each other well, and had previously worked together within the same political outfit. It was submitted that the confrontation occurred because the victim's family shifted their allegiance to a rival political party, making it evident that the appellants were fully aware of the victim's caste.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that while the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indian Explosives Act were indeed bailable, a prima facie case was distinctly made out under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Addressing the statutory requirement of the offence occurring within "public view," the Court clarified that a place within public view is not identical to a public place. It observed that the presence of multiple accused persons acting in tandem to insult and humiliate a victim is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of "public view," as they effectively act as third parties overhearing the insults.

"In the instant case, it appears that the parties are known to each other, who worked in the same political party for a considerable time and in such a case when the first accused called the caste name in public view, it is safe to conclude at this stage that prima facie the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 is made out", the Court said.

Since the records indicated that the parties were well acquainted through their past political work, the Court held that the knowledge of the victim's caste could be safely presumed at the pre-trial stage.

Ultimately, the Court affirmed that when a prima facie case is established under the special statute, the statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail operates absolutely.

Finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision, and taking note of the appellants' past criminal history, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to surrender before the investigating officer.

Cause Title: Bhageesh Pooradan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:KER:44540]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate E.U. Dhanya, Advocate Lindons C. Davis, Advocate N.S. Shamila, Advocate Chinju P. Joyies, Advocate Vinayak Manoharan P.

Respondents: Public Prosecutor Hasna Mol N.S., Advocate R. Ranjith (Manjeri), Advocate Aiswarya Madhu.

Click here to read/download the Judgment