Section 18 bars anticipatory bail only when a prima facie SC/ST Act offence is made out.

The appellants, accused Nos. 1–5, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 140/2026, registered following a complaint alleging that, during a dispute over road widening, they formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted individuals and abused the complainant by reference to his caste.

The complaint also alleged that the complainant sustained a head injury.

The appellants contended that the dispute arose from the road-widening project and that the complaint lacked material showing an intention to insult or humiliate anyone on caste grounds; they also relied on an earlier complaint concerning the same incident.

The Special Judge rejected their anticipatory-bail application, and the appellants appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Whether the allegations and material disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sufficient to attract the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18.

Whether the appellants were otherwise entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions addressing the prosecution’s concerns about investigation and witness interference.

Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars anticipatory bail where a prima facie case for an offence under that Act is made out; the bar does not apply merely because the FIR cites the Act if its offence ingredients are not prima facie disclosed.

The Court referred to Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, as well as coordinate-bench decisions, in considering the operation of the statutory bar.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the Act, and the Court considered whether anticipatory bail could be granted on the record, with appropriate conditions to secure cooperation with the investigation and prevent witness tampering.

The Court considered the road-widening dispute to be the apparent genesis of the incident and found no prima facie indication, on the material then available, that the appellants intended to insult or humiliate the complainant or other persons on caste grounds.

It therefore concluded that the Section 18 bar was not a sufficient reason to refuse anticipatory bail in this case.

The Court also noted that the injured persons had been discharged, that no antecedents were shown, and that the prosecution’s concerns arising from the ongoing investigation could be addressed by imposing conditions requiring the appellants to assist the Investigating Officer and refrain from tampering with witnesses.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, the appellants be released on bail upon appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum.

The appellants must cooperate with the investigation, appear before the trial court when directed, and refrain from tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.

The order preserves the possibility of custodial interrogation with prior permission of the Special Judge or trial court.