The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to five individuals accused of assault and caste-based abuse during the December 2025 local body elections, with the court observing that the allegations appeared prima facie "doubtful" and seemed to stem from political conflict rather than genuine criminal intent.
Court Questions Basis of Allegations
Justice A Badharudeen, while hearing the plea against a trial court order that had denied anticipatory bail to the accused, noted that the entire case appeared to emerge from political rivalry between two parties on election day. The court stated that having considered the factual matrix of the case, which arose from political animosity specifically on the date of the election, the prosecution's case and allegations would require thorough investigation to uncover the truth.
Legal Framework and Charges
The five men were facing charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Specific sections invoked included those related to wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, causing hurt with dangerous weapons, and obscene acts, along with sections of the SC/ST Act pertaining to atrocities against marginalized communities.
According to the first information statement, on December 9, 2025, the petitioners—who do not belong to either the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community—allegedly approached the office of the de facto complainant, a member of the Parava community, and made threatening statements suggesting that no members of the Parava colony would be spared.
Court's Reasoning for Granting Bail
The court highlighted several factors in its decision:
- Political Context: The incident occurred during local body elections, suggesting the allegations might be politically motivated.
- Doubtful Allegations: The court found the accusations prima facie questionable, requiring deeper investigation.
- Previous Cases: While one accused had involvement in three other crimes, the petitioners' counsel presented verdict copies showing acquittal or quashing in two of those cases.
- Equal Treatment: To avoid discrimination among accused individuals on similar footing, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail.
Background and Legal Proceedings
The petitioners had filed a plea challenging a single judge order that dismissed their anticipatory bail application under the SC/ST Act and BNS provisions. The court noted that the petitioners themselves had filed a complaint regarding election rule violations, though no crime was registered against them in that regard.
Justice Badharudeen emphasized that even though the allegations were serious, the prima facie doubts and the political context warranted granting anticipatory bail with appropriate conditions. The court's January 29 observation underscored that while the case requires proper investigation, the accused could be released on bail pending further proceedings.
This decision highlights the judiciary's careful balancing act between preventing atrocities against marginalized communities and ensuring that allegations aren't weaponized for political purposes, particularly during sensitive periods like elections.
