Anticipatory Bail Inadmissible Post-Cognizance Under SC/ST Act Despite Police Closure Report and Procedural Irregularities

The appellants challenged the denial of anticipatory bail by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran, in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 323 and 379/34 IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The Complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged he was abused and assaulted by the appellants when he demanded unpaid remuneration.

While the police initially submitted a closure report finding the case false, the trial court differed and took cognizance.

The appellants contended the case was a retaliatory fabrication related to a matrimonial dispute (Section 498A IPC) involving the first appellant's daughter.

The court considered Section 14(A)(2) and Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which generally bars anticipatory bail if a prima facie case is made out.

It referenced Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar, clarifying that Section 3(1)(r)(s) requires specific intent to insult or intimidate.

Procedurally, the court noted Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before a Magistrate takes cognizance.

It also acknowledged Bachu Das v. State of Bihar, reinforcing that anticipatory bail is unjustified if a prima facie offense is established.

The High Court observed a procedural conflict: while the police found the allegations false during investigation, the trial court bypassed Section 223 of the BNSS—which requires hearing the accused before taking cognizance—and utilized repealed IPC sections.

The appellants argued that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act should not be applied mechanically where the allegations lack credibility or arise from ulterior motives.

Conversely, the State and Respondent No. 2 argued that once cognizance is taken, the statutory bar under Section 18 is absolute.

The Court navigated this by balancing the technical bar against the police's finding of innocence, determining that rather than granting anticipatory bail, the appellants should seek regular bail given the procedural history.

The appellants were ordered to appear before the trial court on 09.03.2026 to seek regular bail.

The trial court was directed to dispose of the bail plea on the same day, taking into material account that the police investigation had found the case false and that the cognizance was taken without hearing the appellants.