Section 18 bar is inapplicable where no prima facie SC/ST Act offence is disclosed.

The informant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that the appellant used filthy language and caste-based slurs against him, physically assaulted him by grabbing his neck, and threatened to file false complaints with the Lokpal and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Following an investigation into Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 05 of 2023, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 323, 341, 353, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("the Act").

The appellant sought anticipatory bail (A.B.P. No. 114 of 2025), which was dismissed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Garhwa, on February 25, 2025, citing the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act.

The appellant subsequently filed this appeal under Section 14A of the Act to set aside that order.

1. Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act applies when the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet fail to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail despite the registration of a case under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The Court interpreted Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which criminalizes abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within "public view".

Section 18 of the Act, which bars anticipatory bail, is not absolute.

In Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain Another (2025 INSC 1067), the Supreme Court held that if the accusations are devoid of prima facie merit or if a first impression of the FIR suggests no offence under the Act is made out, the Court retains the discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now Section 482 of the BNSS).

The Court analyzed the three essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act: (i) the accused must not be a member of an SC/ST community; (ii) the victim must be a member of an SC/ST community; and (iii) the abuse must occur in a place within "public view".

Upon reviewing the record, the Court found a total absence of material identifying the caste of either the appellant or the informant.

Furthermore, there was no averment that the alleged occurrence took place in public view.

The Court concluded that even if the allegations were accepted as true, the legal requirements for a Section 3(1)(s) offence were not met.

Regarding the IPC offences, the Court noted they were largely bailable, and the allegations concerning Section 353 (assault to deter public servant) were too vague to justify the denial of liberty.

Consequently, the Special Judge’s reliance on the Section 18 bar was deemed a grave illegality.

The Court held that the Section 18 bar does not apply when a prima facie case under the Act is non-existent.

The appellant was directed to surrender before the lower court within six weeks and, in the event of arrest or surrender, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.