Anticipatory bail granted under the SC/ST Act where allegations are nonspecific and false implication appears probable.

The appellants challenged the order dated 12 February 2026 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Buxar, rejecting their anticipatory-bail application in Complaint Case No. 65(C) of 2022.

The complaint alleged that the appellants, allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons, abused the complainant by referring to her caste, assaulted her and her daughter-in-law with lathis and dandas, removed jewellery worth approximately ₹40,000, and assaulted the complainant’s husband and son when they intervened.

The alleged offences were under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants pleaded false implication arising out of an existing land dispute, the absence of specific overt acts, and a delay of approximately forty days in filing the complaint.

They also contended that the complainant did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe and relied on a genealogical report issued by the village Sarpanch.

They further referred to earlier civil and preventive proceedings between the parties.

The respondent opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that cognizance had been taken under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and that the allegations concerned caste-based abuse and assault.

Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail in an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, considering the allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of that Act?

Whether the land dispute, delayed complaint, non-specific allegations, and the appellants’ contention regarding the complainant’s caste status justified interference with the order rejecting anticipatory bail?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the order refusing anticipatory bail.

The alleged substantive offences included Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, concerning intentional caste-based insult or intimidation and abuse by caste name, as well as Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

In granting protection, the Court applied the general principles governing anticipatory bail, including consideration of the nature and specificity of the allegations, the possibility of false implication, and the surrounding circumstances.

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

The Court found that the parties were involved in an ongoing land dispute and that the allegations against the appellants were non-specific.

It also considered the appellants’ contention that the complaint was delayed and that there was a possibility of false accusation.

Although the prosecution alleged caste-based abuse and assault and the respondent pointed out that cognizance had been taken under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the Court, at the anticipatory-bail stage, treated the background dispute and the absence of specific overt acts as significant factors favouring protection from arrest.

The Court therefore concluded that the circumstances justified setting aside the rejection of anticipatory bail.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks, the appellants be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Buxar.

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