Conditional anticipatory bail granted to accused booked under SC/ST Act provisions.

The appellants challenged the Special Judge’s order dated 17 September 2026 rejecting their application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The application arose from Crime No. 62/2026, registered for offences under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appellants maintained that they had been released on bail when the case involved bailable offences and were not informed that SC/ST Act offences had been added; they also disputed the date communicated for filing the charge-sheet.

The State opposed the appeal, and informed the Court that the victim had been notified of it under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

1. Whether the Special Judge’s refusal of anticipatory bail should be set aside and the appellants granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.

2. Whether the appellants’ contentions concerning the alleged offences and the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act warranted relief.

The appeal was brought under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act, challenging the refusal of anticipatory bail sought under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the case-specific circumstances and granted conditional protection, requiring the appellants to appear before the Investigating Officer or trial Court within fifteen days and furnish bonds and sureties; it also imposed conditions concerning cooperation, non-interference with witnesses and evidence, and attendance during trial.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not state a general legal test for the operation of Sections 18 or 18A of the SC/ST Act.

After hearing the parties and perusing the case diary, the Court relied particularly on the fact that the trial would take time to conclude.

It allowed the appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits, and did not separately determine whether the alleged conduct attracted the charged offences or whether Sections 18 and 18A barred anticipatory bail.

Instead, it made relief conditional on the appellants’ timely appearance and compliance with the specified bail conditions.

The appellants were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer or trial Court within fifteen days and, upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one solvent surety each in the like amount, were to be released on anticipatory bail.

The order would automatically stand cancelled if they failed to appear within that period; the bail was to remain effective through trial, subject to the stated conditions and the trial Court’s power to consider cancellation upon breach.