Section 18 bar does not apply where SC/ST Act offences are not prima facie established.

The appellants challenged, under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the orders dated 9 February 2026 by which the Special Judge (GLGP), Additional Sessions Judge, Surat rejected their applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

The applications arose from FIR C.R. No.11210064260112 of 2026 registered at Godadara Police Station, Surat City, for offences under Sections 329(3) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(3) and 5(c) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

The appellants asserted false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, lack of any recovery requirement, and no need for custodial interrogation.

They also stated that possession of the disputed land had been restored to the complainant.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying upon the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of tampering with evidence, and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act.

The complainant confirmed settlement of the dispute, restoration of possession, and stated that there was no objection to grant of anticipatory bail.

Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR alleging offences under the BNS and the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act?

Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act precluded consideration of the appellants’ anticipatory-bail applications?

Whether, having regard to the restoration of possession, settlement with the complainant, absence of antecedents, and the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation was necessary?

The Court applied Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act, which provides for an appeal against specified orders of the Special Court; Section 482 of the BNSS concerning anticipatory bail; and the relevant provisions of the BNS and the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act invoked in the FIR.

It considered the settled bail factors, including the existence of a prima facie case, gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, antecedents, likelihood of repetition, possibility of influencing witnesses, and obstruction of justice.

On the applicability of the Atrocities Act, the Court relied on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, for the principle that the statutory bar does not apply where a prima facie case under the Act is not made out.

It also relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, as well as the principles governing anticipatory bail in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 6941, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 665, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.

The Court found that possession of the disputed land had already been restored to the complainant, a fact confirmed by the complainant’s advocate, who also reported settlement and raised no objection to bail.

The appellants had no criminal antecedents, and the Court found no apparent requirement for custodial interrogation or recovery.

Applying Prathvi Raj Chauhan, the Court held that the Atrocities Act bar did not prevent consideration of anticipatory bail because the allegations did not prima facie establish an offence under that statute.

Balancing the nature of the allegations, the settlement, restoration of possession, the appellants’ willingness to cooperate, and their protection since March 2026, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail could be granted subject to safeguards ensuring cooperation with the investigation and protection of the evidence and witnesses.

The Special Court’s orders dated 9 February 2026 were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or appearance in connection with the FIR, on executing a personal bond of ₹10,000 each with one surety of the like amount.

The bail was subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, appearance at Godadara Police Station on 12 August 2026 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., non-interference with witnesses or evidence, furnishing and maintaining the residential address, and not leaving India without the Court’s permission.

The Court clarified that anticipatory bail would not restrict the investigating agency’s powers and that the prosecution could seek arrest under Section 483(3) of the BNSS in case of breach of the bail conditions.

The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made while granting bail.