Absent prima facie caste-based intent to insult, Section 18 does not bar anticipatory bail.

The complainant alleged that, during a dispute over sheep passing through her family’s land, the appellants trespassed, assaulted her husband and father-in-law, and that one appellant assaulted and manhandled her.

The complaint invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

A counter-case arising from the same incident had also been registered on a complaint by a member of the appellants’ family; the accused in that case had received anticipatory bail.

The appellants appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the Sessions Court’s order dated 22 July 2026 in Crl. Misc. No. 399/2026, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 131/2026.

The State opposed the appeal, relying on the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act and the statutory bar on anticipatory bail.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the Sessions Court’s order.

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under the Act is disclosed; the Court reasoned that the bar would not prevent anticipatory bail where the complaint did not make out such a case.

The Court also relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and considered the absence of antecedents, the completion of investigation, and whether custodial interrogation was required.

The judgment refers generally to a ruling of the Supreme Court on the need for intentional caste-based abuse or insult, but does not identify that precedent by name.

The Court found no prima facie material that the appellants had intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant or injured persons on the basis of caste, including by using their caste name; it therefore held that the Section 18 bar did not preclude anticipatory bail.

It also noted that the alleged injuries were simple, that the injured husband had been discharged, and that anticipatory bail had been granted in the counter-case arising from the same incident.

Since the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, no antecedents were shown, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the Court held that the appellants had made out sufficient grounds for bail, subject to conditions.

The police were directed to release the appellants on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 131/2026 upon each executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Conditions included appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, attending court as directed, not tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation, and not committing similar or other offences while the case was pending.