The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that repeated criminal conduct, especially in cases involving atrocities against Scheduled Castes, renders regular bail inappropriate when there is a credible risk of witness tampering, absconding, and public disorder. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s refusal to grant bail to individuals with entrenched patterns of violence and systemic disregard for law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Linto Lijo, aged 26, is the first accused in Crime No. 505/2023 registered at Kodanadu Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleges that on 06.10.2023 at approximately 5:30 p.m., the appellant, along with a second accused, both non-SC/ST members, murdered a victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The assault occurred at Kallumala, Aimury, using a chopper. The victim sustained multiple incised wounds, including amputation of the right hand, and succumbed to his injuries. The incident followed prior enmity between the accused and the victim.
Key Facts
- The victim provided a dying declaration naming the appellant as the principal assailant.
- The postmortem report (No. 886/2023, dated 07.10.2023) recorded 12 antemortem injuries, with cause of death attributed to incised wounds to the right upper limb and left lower limb.
- The appellant was arrested on 30.01.2024 under a detention order issued by the District Collector under Section 3(1) read with Section 13(2)(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
- The detention order (DCEKM/12974/2023-M7, dated 19.01.2024) was confirmed by the State Government via G.O. (Rt) No. 1027/2024/HOME dated 04.04.2024.
- The appellant’s writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed by the High Court on 21.06.2024.
- The appellant had previously been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act on two prior occasions: 21.12.2020 (preventive order) and 05.09.2022 (detention order, served from 01.12.2022 to 31.05.2023).
- He violated the 2020 restriction order by entering Ernakulam District, leading to registration of Crime No. 43/2021 (28.01.2021) and Crime No. 1367/2021 (24.09.2021) under the KAAPA Act.
- He was also involved in Crime No. 1368/2021 under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act (24.09.2021), Crime No. 248/2022 under Sections 294(b) and 506 IPC (22.04.2022), and Crime No. 592/2022 under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i), 34 IPC (29.06.2022).
- The victim’s family, currently residing under police protection at Kottappady Police Station, fear for the life of the deceased’s son if the appellant is released.
- The murder triggered mass displacement of villagers, requiring police intervention and special security camps to restore normalcy.
Procedural History
- 06.10.2023: Commission of murder; Crime No. 505/2023 registered.
- 19.01.2024: Detention order issued under KAAPA Act.
- 30.01.2024: Appellant arrested and taken into custody.
- 12.02.2024: Government approved detention order.
- 04.04.2024: Detention order confirmed via G.O. (Rt) No. 1027/2024/HOME.
- 21.06.2024: High Court dismissed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 559/2024 challenging detention.
- 04.04.2026: Special Court dismissed appellant’s first bail application (Crl.M.P. No. 01/2026).
- 18.06.2026: Oral arguments heard in Criminal Appeal No. 757/2026.
- 03.07.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that:
- The appellant has been in custody since 30.01.2024.
- Trial is unlikely to commence soon.
- Though he has prior criminal antecedents, he has been acquitted in five cases.
- Only a few cases remain pending, and he is not a flight risk.
- Denial of bail violates the presumption of innocence.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor submitted that:
- The appellant has been involved in 13 serious criminal cases.
- He has been acquitted in five cases, but eight cases remain pending.
- He is a KAAPA detenu, gang leader, and drug addict.
- He has repeatedly violated court-imposed restrictions.
- Witnesses and villagers live in constant fear of retaliation.
- Granting bail would endanger witnesses, compromise evidence, and disrupt public order.
- The crime was brutal, caste-motivated, and caused widespread terror in the locality.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought regular bail in the pending trial under Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018.
The Legal Issue
Whether the gravity of the offence, habitual criminality, pending criminal cases, and credible threat of witness intimidation and absconding justify the denial of regular bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, despite the accused’s acquittals in prior cases.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. He emphasized that acquittals in five cases indicate the appellant is not a habitual criminal and that prolonged custody without trial violates Article 21. He argued that the Special Judge failed to distinguish between past acquittals and current allegations.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor relied on State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, asserting that bail is not a right in heinous offences where public order and witness safety are at stake. He presented the Investigating Officer’s report detailing the appellant’s 13 criminal involvements, eight pending cases, and history of detention under KAAPA. He argued that the appellant’s conduct demonstrates a pattern of criminality that renders him unfit for release.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, which criminalizes murder committed with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste. The Court noted that the offence is not merely a violation of personal rights but an assault on social dignity and public order.
"The appellant’s conduct reveals a pattern of criminality that transcends isolated incidents. He is not merely an accused; he is a known KAAPA detenu, gang leader, and drug addict who has repeatedly flouted judicial and administrative restrictions."
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on acquittals in five cases, holding that the presence of eight pending cases, including multiple serious offences under IPC and NDPS Act, establishes a clear trajectory of habitual offending. The Court emphasized that the burden of demonstrating non-dangerousness lies with the accused, particularly in cases involving caste-based violence.
The Court further held that the Investigating Officer’s report, corroborated by the victim’s dying declaration and the displacement of villagers, establishes a real and imminent threat to witnesses and public tranquillity. The Court observed:
"The fear instilled in the community is not speculative; it is documented, verified, and has necessitated police-led resettlement efforts. Granting bail would undo these efforts and invite further violence."
The Court distinguished Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, noting that while that case curtailed automatic arrests under Section 498A IPC, it did not create a blanket entitlement to bail in cases of extreme gravity and habitual criminality. The Court affirmed that Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, which mandates stringent conditions for bail, permits denial where the accused poses a threat to witnesses or public order.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court confirmed the order dated 04.04.2026 of the Special Court denying regular bail to the appellant. The appellant shall remain in custody until the conclusion of trial in Crime No. 505/2023. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court for information and further steps.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatic Even With Prior Acquittals
- Practitioners must demonstrate that prior acquittals reflect genuine innocence, not prosecutorial weakness.
- A pattern of multiple pending cases, especially under special statutes like SC/ST POA Act, overrides the presumption of innocence.
- Acquittals do not erase the evidentiary weight of ongoing criminal conduct.
Witness Safety Trumps Delay in Trial
- Prolonged custody without trial does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if release risks witness intimidation.
- Courts may consider community impact, displacement, and fear as valid grounds for denial.
- Dying declarations and documented witness apprehension are decisive in bail hearings under the SC/ST POA Act.
Habitual Offenders Face Higher Threshold for Bail
- KAAPA detentions, NDPS convictions, and gang affiliations are admissible as evidence of habitual criminality.
- Courts will treat repeat offenders under special statutes as high-risk, regardless of the nature of individual charges.
- Legal aid counsel must prepare detailed affidavits on rehabilitation or community ties to counter the presumption of danger.
