Anticipatory Bail Inadmissible Where Prima Facie Evidence and Statutory Bar Under SC/ST Act Exist

The appellants, Rahul Kumar and Krishna Dhakad, were implicated in FIR No. 240/2025 at Police Station Betul Bazar for various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants moved the Special Judge, Betul, for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which was rejected on 28.02.2026.

They subsequently filed these second criminal appeals under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, claiming a plea of alibi and arguing that Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location data proved their absence from the crime scene.

The State and the victim opposed the appeals, asserting that CDR data placed the appellants in the vicinity and that custodial interrogation was necessary.

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

2. Whether disputed questions of fact, such as pleas of alibi and electronic evidence (CDR/CCTV), can be adjudicated at the stage of considering an anticipatory bail application.

The court's decision was governed by Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides the mechanism for appeals against bail orders.

It strictly applied the statutory bar contained in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, which precludes the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is established under the Act.

The court considered the procedural framework of Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding anticipatory bail, alongside substantive provisions of the BNS, 2023, including Sections 74 (assault/criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty), 70(1) (rape), and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt).

The court observed that the material collected during the investigation prima facie supported the prosecution's case.

It rejected the appellants' reliance on CDRs, location data, and CCTV footage as grounds for bail, reasoning that these constitute "disputed questions of fact" and "matters of defense" that are more appropriately examined during the trial rather than the preliminary stage of bail.

The court noted that even if mobile locations did not match the exact spot, the proximity to the vicinity remained a factor for investigation.

Applying the statutory mandate, the court held that the gravity of the offences and the specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act outweighed the appellants' arguments for liberty at this stage.

The court held that no case for bail was made out given the gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the appellants, and the legal prohibition under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Any observations made were clarified as not being a comment on the merits of the case.