Anticipatory Bail Granted Where SC/ST Act Allegations Appear Malafide and Lack Public View Element

The appellants (Ram Raut, Sandeep Kumar Raut, and Susheela Devi) sought anticipatory bail after their prayer was rejected by the Special Judge, Madhubani on 17.01.2026

The prosecution alleged that Appellant No. 1 attempted to sexually assault the 56-year-old informant and, when confronted, the appellants used caste-based slurs against the informant's family

The appellants contended the case was a retaliatory fabrication; Appellant No. 1 had previously filed a kidnapping case (Sakari P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024) against the employer of the informant

They further highlighted a significant delay in filing the complaint (occurrence on 10.04.2025, complaint on 05.05.2025, and FIR on 27.07.2025) and argued the incident did not occur in "public view"

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the statutory bar, given the allegations and the plea of false implication

2. Whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out considering the requirement of the offense being committed in "public view"

The court primarily applied Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 regarding appeals against bail orders

It also considered Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding conditions for bail

Substantively, the court looked at Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 351(2), 352, and 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the necessity of the offense occurring in a public place or under public view to attract specific SC/ST Act provisions

The court analyzed the veracity of the allegations in light of the prior animosity between the parties, specifically the kidnapping case filed by Appellant No. 1 against the informant's employer, suggesting a motive for false implication

The court noted the "doubtful nature of the allegation" due to the unexplained delay of nearly four months in lodging the FIR following the alleged incident

Furthermore, the court found a "lack of substantive material" to satisfy the legal requirements of the SC/ST Act, as the alleged abuses were not demonstrated to have occurred in a public place or within public view, which is a prerequisite for the application of Section 3(1)(r)(s)

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2026. It held that the appellants be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including presence at trial and one bailor being a close relative