Anticipatory bail is maintainable where SC/ST Act allegations lack specificity and prima facie cogent material.

The appellant challenged the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhagalpur, which refused his prayer for anticipatory bail

The prosecution alleged that during a dispute over the immersion of a Goddess Kali idol, the appellant and co-accused persons abused the informant using caste-based slurs and physically assaulted the informant’s group, further committing theft of cash and jewelry

The appellant contended he was falsely implicated due to a rivalry between two Puja Committees, noting he had no criminal antecedents and that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the bar typically associated with such offenses

2. Whether there exists a prima facie case against the appellant under the provisions of the SC/ST Act based on the specificity of the allegations

The court primarily applied Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders

It further considered Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (the successor to Section 438 CrPC) governing the conditions for anticipatory bail

The court also assessed the applicability of Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, which require specific intent and public view for caste-based insults

The Court observed that the allegations regarding caste-based abuses and specific acts of assault were directed specifically at co-accused Guddu Tanti, rather than the appellant

Despite the prosecution's claim of an attack with sharp weapons like a farsa and sword, medical reports failed to show any corresponding sharp-weapon injuries

The court noted that since 32 individuals were named, the allegations appeared non-specific and "doubtful" in nature

Furthermore, since a similarly situated co-accused (Sumit Kumar) had already been granted bail and the appellant had a clean criminal record, the court found that there was a prima facie absence of cogent material to satisfy the stringent bars of the SC/ST Act against the appellant

It directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks, the appellant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties

The holding was based on the non-specific nature of the allegations and the lack of prima facie evidence supporting the SC/ST Act charges against this specific appellant