Section 18 bars anticipatory bail only where a prima facie Atrocities Act offence is established.

The appellant challenged, under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the order dated 21 May 2026 by which the Special Judge (Atrocity), Narmada, rejected his application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged that the appellant went to the complainant’s BSNL office, questioned the stoppage of his private internet services, threatened the complainant, struck him on the head with a ceramic cup, and used caste-based abuses.

The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 121(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The alleged incident occurred on 11 May 2026, whereas the FIR was lodged three days later.

The appellant contended that no custodial interrogation, recovery, or discovery was required and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of tampering with evidence, and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act so as to attract the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under Section 18.

2. Whether, considering the nature of the allegations, the delayed FIR, the absence of material showing insult or humiliation in public view, and the appellant’s willingness to cooperate, he was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The Court applied Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act governing appeals against orders of Special Courts, Section 482 of the BNSS concerning anticipatory bail, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

It held that the bar under Section 18 against anticipatory bail operates only where the allegations prima facie establish an offence under the SC/ST Act; the mere fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste is insufficient.

The Court relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, on the requirement of prima facie material for applying the statutory bar.

It also relied on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, regarding the applicability of anticipatory bail where no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.

General principles governing anticipatory bail, including those in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, were also applied.

The Court found that the FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident and that the investigation papers contained no material showing that the appellant had insulted or humiliated the complainant, or used abusive language in a public view, in the manner necessary to prima facie attract Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Since the complainant’s Scheduled Caste status, by itself, was insufficient to invoke that provision, the Section 18 bar did not operate.

The Court further considered that the appellant’s custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary, that no recovery or discovery was required, and that he had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against the absence of a prima facie SC/ST Act offence and the established principles governing anticipatory bail, the Court held that the appellant deserved protection from arrest.

The appellant was granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or appearance in connection with FIR C.R. No.11823017260640 of 2026 on executing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount.

The relief was subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the concerned 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 his address, not leaving India without permission, and depositing his passport, if any.

The Court clarified that the investigating agency could seek arrest under Section 483(3) of the BNSS in case of breach of the bail conditions, and that the trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made while granting bail.