Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in Prasobh M. v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.A. No. 793 of 2026), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 347, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the refusal of regular bail by the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases at Mannarkkad. The order was pronounced by Justice A. Badharudeen in open court on June 29, 2026, while a detailed reasoned judgment is awaited.

The case arises from serious allegations of sexual exploitation, intimidation, and abuse of authority against the appellant, a former councillor of the Palakkad Municipality. The prosecution case, as placed before the courts, alleges that the appellant sexually exploited a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community by promising her employment during his tenure as a public representative. It is further alleged that he subsequently intimidated and abused her when she raised complaints or resisted the alleged exploitation.

Based on the victim’s complaint, the Palakkad Town South Police registered a case invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The offences alleged include Sections 332(b), 69, 115(2), and 351(2) of the BNS, along with Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, reflecting allegations of sexual misconduct, coercion, intimidation, and caste-based exploitation.

The appellant had earlier approached the courts seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Court. His subsequent appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest bail before the High Court was also dismissed. After his arrest and continued judicial custody, he moved for regular bail, which again met with rejection by the Special Court. The present appeal before the High Court arose from this refusal.

The matter thus involved an examination of bail jurisprudence in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault coupled with offences under the SC/ST Act, where statutory restrictions and heightened sensitivity to victim protection play a significant role in judicial decision-making.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellant, represented by senior counsel Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar along with other advocates, contended that the allegations levelled against him were false, motivated, and arose out of political and personal vendetta. It was submitted that the complainant had made sweeping accusations without reliable supporting material, and that continued incarceration of the appellant was unjustified at the pre-trial stage.

The defence argued that the appellant had already been subjected to denial of anticipatory bail and that continued rejection of bail applications amounted to pre-judgment of guilt. It was further contended that the investigation did not require custodial interrogation, and that all relevant materials had already been collected by the investigating agency.

The appellant also asserted that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not prima facie made out. It was argued that mere reference to caste in the complaint, without clear evidence of intentional caste-based humiliation or targeted abuse, would not automatically attract the stringent provisions of the special statute.

It was further submitted that the appellant was a responsible public figure and there was no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. On this basis, the appellant sought interference with the order of the Special Court and prayed for grant of regular bail.

On the other hand, the State strongly opposed the appeal and supported the findings of the Special Court rejecting bail. The prosecution submitted that the allegations against the appellant were grave in nature, involving sexual exploitation of a Dalit woman under the guise of promising employment, thereby reflecting both abuse of power and caste-based vulnerability.

The State contended that the complainant’s statements disclosed a clear prima facie case of sexual exploitation and intimidation. It was further argued that the appellant had used his position as a municipal councillor to gain undue advantage over the victim, thereby attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act, which are intended to protect members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from humiliation and exploitation.

The prosecution also emphasised that in cases under the SC/ST Act, statutory safeguards restrict the grant of bail unless the Court is satisfied that no prima facie case exists. Given the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation, the State argued that custodial detention was necessary to ensure a fair and effective investigation.

The State further submitted that the appellant had already been denied anticipatory bail at multiple stages, indicating that both the Special Court and the High Court had found sufficient grounds to reject pre-trial liberty. Therefore, there was no justification for granting regular bail at this stage of proceedings.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, after considering the submissions made by both sides and perusing the available records, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Special Court refusing regular bail to the appellant. Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the decision in open court, with a detailed judgment to follow.

The Court observed that the allegations against the appellant were of a serious nature involving sexual exploitation of a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, allegedly under the false promise of employment. The Court noted that such allegations, if taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case not only of sexual misconduct but also of abuse of official position and caste-based exploitation.

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that while considering bail in cases involving offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, courts must be cautious and mindful of the statutory intent behind the legislation, which is to provide effective protection to members of vulnerable communities from exploitation, intimidation, and discrimination.

Although a detailed reasoning order has been reserved, the Court’s pronouncement in open court indicates that it found no infirmity in the reasoning of the Special Court in denying bail. The Court effectively accepted that the material placed on record at this stage was sufficient to justify continued judicial custody, particularly given the seriousness of allegations and the statutory framework governing such offences.

The Court also took note of the procedural history of the case, including the fact that the appellant’s requests for anticipatory bail had already been rejected at earlier stages. This indicated that multiple judicial forums had independently found prima facie grounds to deny pre-arrest protection, thereby strengthening the prosecution’s case for continued custody.

In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, especially when coupled with offences under the SC/ST Act, courts are required to balance personal liberty with the need to protect victims and ensure effective investigation. The High Court, in the present case, appeared to have given greater weight to the gravity of allegations and the statutory safeguards embedded in the special legislation.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the refusal of regular bail by the Special Court was upheld. The decision ensures that the appellant continues to remain in custody while the investigation proceeds, leaving all issues relating to guilt or innocence to be determined during trial based on evidence.

The ruling reinforces the principle that bail in serious offences, particularly those involving allegations of sexual exploitation and caste-based abuse, cannot be granted as a matter of routine and must be assessed with due regard to statutory restrictions and the overall facts of the case.