Anticipatory bail granted despite allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 17 September 2026 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Guna, which rejected their application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The appellants apprehended arrest in Crime No. 108/2021 registered at Police Station Cantt, District Guna, for offences under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellants contended that they had been falsely implicated, that no caste-based abuse had been made, and that the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act was not attracted.

They also asserted their permanent residence, willingness to cooperate with the investigation and trial, and absence of any likelihood of fleeing from justice.

The State opposed the appeal.

The Court recorded that the victim had been informed of the appeal in compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.

Whether, on the facts and material placed before the Court, the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act precluded the grant of anticipatory bail.

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions concerning cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and appearance during trial.

The Court applied Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides for an appeal against an order of the Special Court; Section 482 of the BNSS, concerning anticipatory bail; Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, which restrict the availability of anticipatory bail where an offence under the Act is prima facie made out; and Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, requiring notice and participation-related safeguards for victims.

The Court also considered the general principles governing anticipatory bail, including the accused’s undertaking to cooperate with investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and remain available for trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

After hearing the parties and examining the case diary, the Court considered the surrounding facts and circumstances, particularly the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

Although the appellants disputed the caste-related allegations and argued that Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act were not attracted, the Court did not record a detailed finding on the merits or conclusively determine the applicability of those provisions.

Instead, “without expressing any opinion on merits,” it found the case appropriate for conditional protection from arrest.

The grant of relief was balanced by requiring the appellants to appear within fifteen days, furnish bonds and surety, cooperate with investigation, avoid similar offences, refrain from influencing witnesses, and comply with trial-related obligations.

The Court directed that, if the appellants appeared before the Investigating Officer or trial court within fifteen days and furnished a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one solvent surety in the like amount, they would be released on anticipatory bail.

Failure to appear within the prescribed period would automatically cancel the order.

The bail was made subject to conditions concerning cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, compliance with the filing of the final report and trial proceedings, and attendance as directed by the trial court.

The protection was to remain effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to cancellation on merits in the event of breach of the bail conditions.