Mere Matrimonial Discord Can't Justify Blanket Denial of Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court

"When caste allegations are vague and unsupported, custodial interrogation becomes an instrument of oppression rather than justice," High Court of Kerala carving out crucial judicial safeguards against the misuse of stringent provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 in domestic disputes. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed anticipatory bail to both appellants—husband and his friend—accused in a case alleging caste-based abuse and assault, stating that "prima facie allegations under the SC/ST Act must rise above vague insinuations, especially when liberty is at stake."

The case, which originated from a marital dispute and involved a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, turned legally complex when the wife invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act, alongside charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Sessions Court had earlier denied pre-arrest bail, triggering these criminal appeals.

"In a Domestic Conflict, Criminal Law Cannot Become a Weapon of Retribution Without Credible Proof"

At the heart of the case lies a familiar but sensitive intersection—marital discord weaponised through criminal litigation. The first accused, Saji K., is the husband of the complainant, while the fourth accused, Mohanan Pillai, is his friend. According to the prosecution, on 28th July 2025, the complainant was physically assaulted and subjected to casteist slurs inside her matrimonial home, even while a protection order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was in force.

However, the High Court decisively noted the lack of medical evidence to support claims of grievous hurt or fracture, observing:
"Despite repeated opportunities, the complainant failed to produce any X-ray or fracture report. The only document on record is a medical certificate advising an X-ray, but not establishing any fracture or grievous injury."

This absence of concrete medical proof diluted the evidentiary strength of the assault allegation, leading the Court to conclude that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

"Marrying a Woman from SC Community Can't Alone Attract Atrocities Act in Absence of Specific Caste-Based Abuse"

One of the most compelling aspects of this ruling is the Court's handling of the SC/ST Act charges. The complainant alleged that her husband, despite knowing she belongs to a Scheduled Caste, insulted her by caste name during an altercation. But the Court found the FIR narrative wanting.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held:
"Admittedly, the first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. Despite knowing that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste, he married her. The allegations regarding caste-based abuse are vague and lacking in specificity."

Citing the landmark ruling in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, the Court reminded that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not operate where the allegations fail to disclose a prima facie offence.

"When the foundational ingredients of the offence are absent, applying the statutory bar under the Atrocities Act would be contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence," the Court declared, extending protection from arrest.

"Courts Must Avoid Escalation in Matrimonial Litigations Through Disproportionate Coercive Measures"

Emphasising the need for judicial restraint in family disputes, the Court delivered a cautionary note on the criminalisation of matrimonial altercations.

"The issue basically stems out of a matrimonial relationship, and hence the Courts must do well to avoid aggravating the situation," Justice Thomas stated, adding that pre-arrest bail was essential to prevent further hostility between the estranged couple.

This judicial approach aligns with a growing recognition in Indian jurisprudence that criminal law should not be wielded as a tactical tool in familial battles, particularly in cases where the stakes involve custody, property, or caste identity.

"Absence of Specific Injury or Caste-Based Intent Erodes the Basis for Arrest"

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to both appellants on the condition that they appear before the investigating officer for interrogation and cooperate with the process. The Court also clarified that this relief is not blanket and can be modified by the jurisdictional court if conditions are breached.

But the larger message was unmistakable:
"Liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of unsubstantiated accusations, especially in emotionally charged matrimonial settings where facts are often entangled with personal bitterness."

Date of Decision: 21st November 2025