Absence of Specific Casteist Slurs and Public View Allegations Negates Statutory Bar Against Anticipatory Bail

The Appellant challenged an order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Nanded, which denied her anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 357/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Deepak, committed suicide on 23.11.2025 due to harassment by the Appellant and others over unpaid interest on a loan.

The Informant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that the Appellant had advanced ₹70,000 to the deceased, obtained a bond for ₹2,00,000, and habitually visited the deceased’s house to abuse him on his caste in public view.

The Appellant contended that the loan transaction was between her son and the deceased's mother, that she was not a signatory to the bond, and that the FIR lacked specific details of caste-based slurs.

Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against granting anticipatory bail applies when a prima facie case is not made out.

Whether the Appellant's custodial interrogation is necessary for the recovery of the alleged loan bond.

Whether the FIR contains sufficient specific allegations to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.

The court applied Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act regarding appeals and Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of BNSS) for anticipatory bail.

It relied on Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which holds that Section 18 bars bail unless no material exists to infer an offence under the Act.

It followed Ratnakala Martandrao Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, affirming that courts can examine FIRs on face value to determine if a prima facie case exists despite the Section 18 bar.

Regarding "deemed custody" for recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the court relied on the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The Court observed that while Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar, it does not preclude judicial scrutiny of the FIR's recitals.

The Court found the FIR lacking in "concrete facts," noting that the Informant failed to specify the dates of the alleged visits or the exact casteist slurs used by the Appellant.

The Court determined that mere vague allegations of caste-based abuse are insufficient to attract Section 3 of the Act.

On the issue of interrogation, the Court noted the Appellant’s willingness to produce the original Agreement to Sale dated 13.05.2025; thus, based on the Sushila Aggarwal doctrine of "limited custody," her physical arrest for recovery was deemed unnecessary.

The Court concluded that the dispute was predominantly financial and lacked the specific criminal intent required for custodial interrogation.

The Court held that a prima facie case for anticipatory bail was made out as the requirements of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act were not met on the face of the FIR.

The Appellant was granted anticipatory bail on a P.R. bond of ₹25,000, subject to conditions including: producing the original bond to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, attending the police station every Monday until the completion of the investigation, and not leaving Nanded Taluka without permission.