Anticipatory bail is maintainable where general and omnibus allegations fail to satisfy statutory ingredients of SC/ST Act.

The appellant sought anticipatory bail following the refusal of his prayer by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya, via order dated 27.01.2026

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused entered the informant’s house, used caste-based slurs, threatened the family to withdraw a previous case, damaged property, and committed theft of ornaments and cash

The appellant contended that the allegations were general and omnibus, specifically noting that the alleged assault was attributed to other co-accused (Dinesh and Jacky Bind) and that the incident occurred inside a house, not in "public view"

1. Whether the allegations against the appellant satisfy the statutory ingredients required to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act

The Court applied Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which governs appeals against orders refusing bail

It considered Sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(i)(w), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act regarding atrocities committed in public view

the court evaluated the case under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 190, 191(1), 74, 329(4), 303(2), 324(5), 324(4), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding conditions for bail

The Court observed that the allegations against the appellant were general, non-specific, and "doubtful" in nature

Crucially, the Court noted that the occurrence allegedly took place inside the house of the informant; since the incident was not in "public view," a primary statutory ingredient for offenses under the SC/ST Act was missing

The Court further found that specific overt acts of assault were attributed to other individuals, not the appellant

Given the lack of material evidence to prima facie attract the specialized Act and the fact that the appellant had a "clean antecedent" (no prior criminal record), the Court determined that the bar on anticipatory bail did not apply and the custodial interrogation was unnecessary

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 Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties

The holding was subject to conditions that one bailor must be a close relative and the appellant must attend all court dates