Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Kerala Assault Case, Flags Misuse of Atrocities Act.


31 October 2025 Anticipatory Bail >> Criminal Law  

In a notable judgment to reiterate caution against mechanical application of strict penal laws, the Supreme Court, on October 31, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to a Kerala man accused of assault, while observing that the police had wrongly invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Atrocities Act”) without any supporting allegation in the complaint.

The said case was based on Crime No. 372 of 2025 registered in Kerala under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 126(2), 118(1), 296(a), and 110. The petitioner, identified as Sidhan   Sidharathan, was accused of blocking the complainant on a public road and attacking him with a chopper, allegedly inflicting bleeding injuries. His plea for anticipatory bail had earlier been rejected by the Kerala High Court in July 2025, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

 

The Bench consisted of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. V. Anjaria. The Counsel for the petitioner produced the wound certificate, which showed that the complainant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and the injuries recorded were simple in nature. Further, it was stressed that no caste-related insult or atrocity had been mentioned in the initial complaint.

The Court was surprised that in the absence of such an allegation, the investigating police had nonetheless added provisions of the Atrocities Act to the case, which ultimately entailed the refusal of bail by the High Court because of the statutory bar to anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act. The Bench explained that such an unwarranted addition to the charges cannot automatically bar the grant of bail when the foundational complaint itself does not support the charge.

After considering the material and hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner's plea and granted anticipatory bail by directing the Investigating Officer to release the accused on appropriate conditions. The Bench then observed that the High Court's initial assessment was influenced by an untenable invocation of the Act, which, in turn, led to a miscarriage of discretion.

This judgment reiterates the salutary principle in criminal jurisprudence-that courts have to scrutinize the factual foundation of serious allegations before procedural embargoes can begin to operate. It also reminds investigating officers of the need for due restraint and precision in invoking laws with stringent consequences, such as the Atrocities Act, which demands rigorous adherence to both substantive and procedural fairness. In other words, this Supreme Court order restores individual liberty not only in the present case but also sends an important message against overreach in law enforcement when baseless additions of serious charges distort justice.


BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989