Anticipatory bail granted where SC/ST Act allegations lacked caste-based insult in public view.

The appellants challenged the order dated 12 January 2026 of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Saran at Chapra, rejecting their prayer for anticipatory bail in Parsa P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025.

The case was registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

According to the prosecution, the appellants and co-accused persons entered the informant’s room, assaulted him, tore his wife’s blouse, and appellant Akhilesh Ray allegedly inflicted a knife injury on the informant.

The appellants denied the allegations, asserted false implication, relied on the absence of an allegation that the informant was insulted by reference to his caste, contended that the incident did not occur in public view, and pointed to a compromise between the informant and co-accused Ashok Ray.

They also submitted that there was no specific allegation against appellant no. 2, no injury report was on record, and they had clean antecedents.

The State opposed the appeal, while respondent no. 2 did not appear despite service of notice.

Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, notwithstanding the rejection of their bail application by the Special Court?

Whether the circumstances relied upon by the appellants, including the informant’s compromise with a co-accused and the asserted possibility of false implication, justified interference with the rejection order?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with the specified offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including attendance before the trial court and the furnishing of bail bonds and sureties.

No separate judicial precedent was cited or applied.

The Court considered the appellants’ submissions that the allegations were general, that there was no specific caste-based insult or occurrence in public view, that appellant no. 2 had no specific role, and that the prosecution version was weakened by the informant’s compromise with co-accused Ashok Ray.

Although the prosecution alleged assault and a knife blow, the Court placed particular emphasis on the informant’s admission in the compromise petition and the resulting possibility of false accusation.

On that assessment, the Court found the appellants entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail and interfered with the Special Court’s refusal of 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 Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Saran at Chapra.

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.