Anticipatory bail remains available under the SC/ST Act where no prima facie atrocity offence is made out.

The complainant, a PDO, alleged that the appellant demanded ₹50,000 from him and other PDOs, threatened them, and abused the complainant by referring to his caste at the Taluk Panchayat office on 26 May 2026.

An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 132, 308(2), 351(2), 352 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the “SC/ST Act”).

The appellant sought anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Special Judge dismissed the application on 22 August 2026; the appellant appealed.

He relied, among other matters, on prior complaints made against the complainant and other PDOs, while the State opposed bail, citing the statutory bar, the investigation’s early stage, and risks of interference.

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides for an appeal against an order of a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, while Section 18 bars anticipatory bail for offences under the Act.

As explained in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and the authorities cited by the Court, that bar does not prevent anticipatory bail where the allegations, on their face, do not make out a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act; the Court also referred to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and decisions of coordinate Benches applying that principle.

The Court further considered the alleged offences’ maximum punishment, noting that they were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The Court considered that the complaint itself alleged the appellant had asked the complainant about his caste, which, in the Court’s view, indicated that the complainant did not know the appellant’s caste at the time and weakened the allegation of caste-based abuse.

It also took account of the approximately two-month delay in filing the complaint and documents showing that the appellant had complained against the complainant and other PDOs on 24 July 2026.

On that record, the Court found no sufficient basis to accept the State’s submission that a prima facie SC/ST Act offence was made out, and therefore held that Section 18 did not preclude anticipatory bail.

It also found no material showing relevant criminal antecedents and concluded that the State’s concerns about investigation and witness interference could be addressed through conditions.

The police were directed to release the appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, execution of a bond for ₹2,00,000 with one surety, cooperation with the investigation, attendance before the trial court when directed, and non-interference with witnesses or the investigation.

The order permits custodial interrogation with prior permission of the Special Judge or trial court if required.