Anticipatory bail granted where potential for false accusation under SC/ST Act is indicated by prior litigation history.

The appellants challenged an order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea, which rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted the informant, used caste-based slurs, and robbed him of a silver chain and cash.

The defense contended that the allegations were retaliatory, noting that the informant had allegedly sexually assaulted the daughter of a co-accused (Md. Lukwa), leading to a separate complaint case (No. 153 of 2026).

The appellants highlighted a four-day delay in lodging the FIR and pointed to the informant’s prior history of filing and subsequently compromising similar SC/ST cases for money.

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite the statutory bars under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case or suggest a possibility of false accusation and concoction.

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding the maintainability of appeals against bail rejections.

Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 438 CrPC] concerning the conditions for anticipatory bail.

Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act and judicial principle that anticipatory bail may be granted if the accusation appears motivated by malice or is prima facie unfounded.

The court analyzed the background of the dispute, noting a significant counter-allegation involving a sexual assault complaint against the informant filed by a co-accused’s family.

The court observed that the site of the alleged occurrence—the gate of the Vakalatkhana—made the unprovoked assault and robbery story less believable.

Crucially, the court took note of the informant's "previous conduct" of lodging a similar SC/ST case in 2021 and compromising it upon receiving payment, which cast doubt on the bona fides of the present FIR.

The four-day delay in filing the FIR was identified as a factor indicating a concocted narrative.

Consequently, the court found that the possibility of false accusation under the SC/ST Act was high enough to warrant protection against arrest.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's order dated 19.02.2026, directing that in the event of arrest or surrender, the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.