Pending civil litigation and property rivalry negate prima facie case for bar on anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act.

The appellant, a 60-year-old accused, challenged the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the Special Court (Atrocities against SC/ST), Manjeri, which dismissed his anticipatory bail plea.

The prosecution alleged that on 11.01.2026, during a boundary dispute, the appellant (non-SC/ST) insulted the defacto complainant (SC) by calling his caste name and threatening him within public view.

The appellant contended the case was foisted due to a pre-existing civil suit (O.S. No.235/2024) he had filed against the complainant regarding the same property boundary.

The court applied Section 14A and Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989/2018, which bars the application of Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) where a prima facie case is made out.

It further applied Sections 115(2), 126(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court relied on the established principle that while the bar is stringent, it does not apply if the allegations, viewed alongside the motive and history of rivalry, fail to substantiate a prima facie offence or suggest malicious prosecution.

The court observed that while the First Information Statement (FIS) contained ingredients of the alleged offences, the "genesis of the case" must be scrutinized to determine if the Section 18 bar applies.

The court noted that a civil suit regarding the same boundary was pending since 2024, where the complainant was a defendant.

The court reasoned that in instances of long-standing rivalry or pending litigation, the risk of "false implication" and "unnecessary detention" is high.

It held that even if some technical ingredients under the SC/ST Act are present in the complaint, if the context suggests a move to wreak vengeance over a civil dispute, the court must lean toward the interest of justice and grant pre-arrest bail, provided the accused cooperates with the investigation.

It held that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail due to the underlying civil dispute and the possibility of false implication.

The court directed the appellant to surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and ordered his release on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including non-intimidation of witnesses and non-interference with the investigation.