Anticipatory Bail Maintainability Where Police Report Exonerates Accused Despite Subsequent Judicial Cognizance of Murder Charges

The appellant was named in an FIR alleging that he and other co-accused persons assaulted the informant’s brother with lathis, rods, and dandas after inquiring about his name and caste, leading to the victim's death.

Following an investigation, the police submitted a final form on 31.03.2022, finding the allegations true against other accused but not sending the appellant up for trial, noting he was absent from the village at the time of the occurrence.

However, the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya, differed from the police report and took cognizance against the appellant, subsequently refusing his prayer for anticipatory bail on 24.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 296 of 2024.

The appellant challenged this refusal via an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite being named in a case involving Section 302 IPC and the SC/ST Act.

2. Whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is established to attract the statutory bar against anticipatory bail.

The court primarily considered Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act regarding appeals against bail orders and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (formerly Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.

It evaluated the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 302 of the IPC.

The court adhered to the principle that where the police investigation yields a favorable report (clean chit) and allegations appear general and omnibus, the rigors of the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act may be bypassed if no prima facie case is made out.

The Court observed that while the appellant was named in the FIR, the police investigation concluded there was no evidence of his involvement, leading to a "final form" that did not charge him.

The Court noted that the allegations in the FIR were general and omnibus in nature.

Recognizing the "favourable police report" and the "doubtful nature of allegation," the Court determined that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was not sufficiently established to warrant the denial of liberty.

It further considered the appellant’s clean criminal antecedent and the possibility of false implication.

Consequently, the Court found it fit to exercise its discretion to grant protection from arrest despite the Trial Court’s decision to take cognizance contrary to the police's findings.

The appeal was allowed, and the Court directed that in the event of arrest or surrender, the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial and appearance on all fixed dates.