Section 18 bars anticipatory bail only where a prima facie SC/ST Act offence is disclosed.

The appellants challenged the Special Judge’s order rejecting their anticipatory-bail application in connection with Crime No. 77/2026, registered for offences under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act).

The deceased allegedly died by suicide on 16 March 2025. Her brother, the second respondent, initially complained and a UDR case was registered.

Following proceedings in a writ petition, the High Court directed the police to register an FIR and investigate; the police subsequently filed a charge sheet.

The appellants argued that the materials did not show that they caused or abetted the death. The complainant disputed their account and relied on the complaint, post-mortem report, photographs, and witness statements.

Whether the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case under the BNS or the SC/ST (PoA) Act sufficient to attract the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of that Act.

Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case, including after the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act provides for an appeal against an order concerning bail; Section 18 bars anticipatory bail where the statutory bar applies, but the Court considered whether the record disclosed a prima facie case under the Act.

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was invoked in connection with the alleged BNS offence; the Court stated that no prima facie material established an offence under the Act.

The Court also considered BNS Sections 108 and 103(1) read with Section 3(5), observing in its reasoning that the alleged Section 108 offence was punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment and was not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

It referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, and a coordinate Bench decision in Crl.A. No. 366/2021, but distinguished the cited authorities as involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Court examined the complainant’s and alleged eyewitnesses’ statements, including statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS.

It found no material at that stage showing that the appellants caused the death or abetted the suicide, and noted that the complainant was not an eyewitness and that the room was said to have been locked from inside.

The Court also found no material establishing a nexus between the alleged harassment over the rented house and the suicide, or showing relevant antecedents against the appellants.

On that basis, it concluded that the record disclosed no prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and that Section 18 did not justify denying anticipatory bail.

The judgment’s reasoning discusses Section 108 BNS, whereas the appeal’s description and final order refer to Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) BNS.

The police were directed to release the appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 77/2026, upon each furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Conditions included appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, cooperating with the investigation, attending court when directed, not tampering with witnesses, and not committing further offences; the prosecution or complainant could seek cancellation for breach.