Anticipatory bail is maintainable where both parties belong to the same caste, negating SC/ST Act offenses.

The appellant challenged an order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Siwan, which refused his prayer for anticipatory bail

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused entered the informant’s house, hurled caste-based abuses, threatened her, and demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as extortion

The appellant contended that the FIR was a delayed afterthought, the allegations were general, and most significantly, that both the appellant and the informant belong to the same caste

Procedural history shows the case was registered under Sections 308(2), 308(4), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act

1. Whether an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is maintainable when both the accused and the informant belong to the same caste

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail based on the nature of the allegations and lack of specific overt acts

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 regarding the maintainability of appeals against bail refusals

Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which requires the offender to not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to attract the offense

Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, substituting the erstwhile Section 438 CrPC

The court observed that the primary requirement for an offense under the SC/ST Act is that the accused must not belong to the SC/ST community; however, in this instance, the appellant and the informant are of the same caste, prima facie rendering the SC/ST Act inapplicable

Furthermore, the court noted that the allegations of caste-based abuse were specifically directed at a co-accused, while the allegations against the appellant were general and omnibus

The court took cognizance of the appellant’s defense that the case was retaliatory due to a labor dispute involving the informant's son and illegal liquor

Despite the appellant's four prior criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, the court found the present allegations "doubtful" and "non-specific," justifying the grant of liberty

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 and allowed the appeal; the appellant was granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions that he remain present for all trial dates and that one bailor be a close relative