Anticipatory bail granted where SC/ST Act allegations were non-specific and the accused had clean antecedents.

The appellant challenged the order dated 15 January 2026 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Samastipur, rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail in Tajpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109(1), 308(3), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, the appellant and co-accused Deepak Kumar Ray abused the informant using caste-based insults, demanded ₹10,000 as extortion, and attempted to abduct him.

The appellant contended that he was merely driving the motorcycle, that no specific allegation of abuse or assault was attributed to him, and that nothing incriminating had been recovered from him.

He also relied on his clean antecedents and the parties’ compromise.

Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act and the Arms Act?

Whether the non-specific nature of the allegations against the appellant, the alleged role attributed primarily to the co-accused, his clean antecedents, and the compromise 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, which permits an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court.

The Court considered the principles governing anticipatory bail, including the specificity and gravity of the allegations, the individual role attributed to the accused, the possibility of false implication, and the accused’s antecedents.

The bail order was made subject to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and additional conditions requiring a close-relative surety and attendance before the trial court.

The Court found that the principal allegations of caste abuse, assault and use of the firearm were specifically attributed to the co-accused, whereas the appellant was stated to have been driving the motorcycle and there was no specific allegation that he personally abused or assaulted the informant.

No incriminating article had been recovered from the appellant, and the Court considered his clean antecedents, the possibility of false implication, and the admitted compromise between the parties.

On this assessment of the appellant’s individual role and the evidentiary circumstances, the Court concluded that custodial arrest was not warranted and that the refusal of anticipatory bail required interference.

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

The bail was subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS and the additional conditions that one bailor be a close relative and that the appellant remain present on every date fixed by the trial court, if required.