Prima facie public caste-based abuse attracts Section 18’s bar against anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act.

The appellant challenged the order dated 1 April 2026 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Surajpur, rejecting his request for anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Act. He apprehended arrest in Crime No. 134/2024 registered at Police Station Premnagar for an offence under Section 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 December 2024, while the complainant, Pradeep Shyam, was returning home, the appellant approached him with a hammer, demanded ₹2,000, abused him by referring to his caste when he refused, and threatened to kill his son residing abroad.

The appellant claimed false implication and alleged that he had previously complained to the police regarding harassment by the complainant and his associates.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the incident involved caste-based abuse in a public place, that the bar under Section 18 of the Act applied, and that the appellant had three criminal antecedents but had disclosed only one.

Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act so as to attract the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act?

Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the alleged caste-based abuse, public-place occurrence, criminal antecedents, and alleged concealment of material facts?

The Court considered Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for an appeal against specified orders of the Special Court, and Section 18, which bars the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where an offence under the Act is prima facie made out.

The Court applied the settled principle that the Section 18 bar operates only where the allegations, accepted at face value, disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 3 of the Act; if no prima facie offence is disclosed, anticipatory bail remains maintainable.

The Court also relied on Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 869, cited by the State, concerning the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under the Act.

The Court found that the FIR alleged that the appellant approached the complainant with a hammer, demanded money, and, upon refusal, hurled caste-based abuses and issued threats.

Since the incident allegedly occurred in a public place, the Court held that the appellant’s intention to humiliate the complainant in public could not be ruled out, thereby disclosing a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act and attracting the Section 18 bar.

The Court also considered the complainant’s objection to bail, the State’s assertion that the appellant had three criminal antecedents, the alleged disclosure of only one antecedent, and the allegation that he had remained absconding since the date of the incident.

These circumstances further militated against granting discretionary anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) was dismissed.