Serious allegations and evidence requiring investigation justified denial of anticipatory bail.

The complainant alleged that the appellant repeatedly subjected her to forced sexual intercourse and unnatural sexual acts from January 2024, threatened and blackmailed her, and humiliated her on the basis of caste.

The complaint, lodged on 11 May 2026, led to registration of Crime No. 67/2026 for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)–(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant denied the allegations, relied on the delay in lodging the complaint, and claimed that the complainant had filed a false case after he sought repayment of a loan; he also stated that he had filed a separate complaint against her.

After the Sessions Court rejected his anticipatory-bail application on 30 June 2026, he appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations under the SC/ST Act and the asserted statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of that Act.

Whether the gravity of the alleged offences and the investigative requirements justified refusing anticipatory bail.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Sections 18 and 18A of that Act were invoked by the State and the victim as barring anticipatory bail in the circumstances alleged.

The case involved allegations under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)–(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The judgment cites no precedents and does not set out a separate doctrinal test; it assesses the seriousness of the allegations and the stated investigative needs in deciding the bail appeal.

The Court noted the specific and serious allegations, including repeated sexual assault and caste-based abuse, and the respondents’ submission that the complaint contained detailed allegations.

It also considered the asserted need to investigate private videos, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, payment transactions, financial records and lodge registers.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to anticipatory bail; it did not separately analyse the delay or the appellant’s loan-related defence.