Anticipatory bail granted considering the appellant’s clean antecedents and possibility of false implication.

The appellant was implicated in Barh P.S. Case No. 720 of 2025 for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and other accused persons entered into an altercation with the informant and brutally assaulted him and his family members.

The appellant’s application for anticipatory bail in ABP No. 544 of 2026 was rejected by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna, on 13 February 2026.

The appellant challenged that order under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act, asserting false implication, absence of any specific overt act, lack of the essential ingredients of the alleged SC/ST Act offences, his status as a student, and clean antecedents.

The State opposed the appeal, relying on the allegation that the appellant had participated in the assault.

Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the allegations under the BNS and the SC/ST Act?

Whether the order dated 13 February 2026 rejecting the appellant’s anticipatory-bail application required interference in appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act, which permits an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court.

The alleged offences included Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, together with the specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In granting anticipatory bail, the Court considered the appellant’s clean antecedents and the possibility of false implication.

The bail was made subject to the statutory condition under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, along with additional conditions imposed by the Court.

The Court noted the competing versions: the prosecution alleged the appellant’s participation in a brutal assault, while the defence contended that there was no specific overt act against him and that the allegations, including those under the SC/ST Act, were legally and factually insufficient.

Without undertaking a detailed examination of the evidence at the anticipatory-bail stage, the Court took into account the appellant’s clean antecedents and the possibility that he had been falsely implicated.

On that assessment, the Court found it appropriate to extend the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to conditions intended to secure the appellant’s appearance and participation in the proceedings.

The Court directed that, if arrested or if he surrendered before the concerned court within eight weeks, the appellant would be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Patna.

One surety was required to be a close relative, and the appellant was required to remain present on every date fixed by the trial court if so directed.