The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to a 55-year-old man accused of assault and caste-based abuse after finding that the First Information Report (FIR) did not contain any reference to a casteist remark. The case is titled Sidhan @ Sidharathan vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria expressed surprise that the police had invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, despite the absence of any caste-based slur in the complaint.
“It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the SC/ST Act,” the Court observed.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on April 16, when the accused allegedly stopped the complainant on the road, threatened him, and attacked him with a chopper. The FIR stated that the accused called the complainant a “bastard” before inflicting injuries that resulted in bleeding wounds on his arms.
However, the police subsequently added offences under the SC/ST Act, claiming that the word “bastard” amounted to a caste-based slur. The accused, who had no prior criminal record, sought anticipatory bail before the Kerala High Court, arguing that the inclusion of the SC/ST Act was baseless and not supported by the complaint.
The Kerala High Court refused bail, citing the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Before the apex court, the petitioner argued that the alleged insult was personal and unrelated to caste. He also relied on the wound certificate, which indicated that the complainant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and had sustained only simple injuries.
The petitioner further submitted that he suffered from heart disease and had fully cooperated with the investigation.
The Supreme Court found merit in these arguments, noting that the police had “gone beyond the complaint” in adding provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Bench emphasized that the initial complaint made no reference to any caste-related insult.
“The complaint filed at the first instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by the petitioner–accused,” the Court said.
Decision
Setting aside the Kerala High Court’s order, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Representation
The petitioner was represented by advocates Sriram Parakkat, Anandhu S Nair, Maneesha Sunil Kumar, Bajinder Singh, Sreenath S, and Parthasarathy.
The respondents were represented by advocates Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AL, and Biju P Raman.
Case No. : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11154/2025
