Specific allegations of caste-based abuse in public view attract Section 18 bar against anticipatory bail.

The appellants filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), challenging an order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Koderma

The lower court had rejected the appellants' prayer for anticipatory bail in Chandwara P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 303(2), 74, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who are not members of a scheduled caste or tribe, acted with common intention to abuse the informant (a member of a scheduled caste) by her caste name, "Dusadh," in a place within public view

Further allegations included voluntarily causing hurt, outraging modesty, attempting to disrobe the informant, and committing theft of a mangalsutra

The appellants argued that the allegations were false, a counter-case had been filed, and the place of occurrence was not within "public view"

1. Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to the appellants' prayer for anticipatory bail given the nature of the allegations

2. Whether the allegations in the written report prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act

The Court applied Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which creates a statutory bar against the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (now relevant provisions of BNSS) for offences committed under the Act

It also considered Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, which penalizes abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view

Additionally, the Court referenced the precedent in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710, which clarifies that property disputes do not attract the SC/ST Act unless the victim is abused or intimidated specifically because of their caste in a place within public view

The Court examined whether the allegations were sufficient to trigger the Section 18 bar.

While the appellants relied on Hitesh Verma to argue that the dispute was not caste-motivated and did not occur in public view, the Court found direct and specific allegations in the record stating that the appellants abused the informant by her caste name ("Dusadh") in a place within public view

The Court noted that the appellants acted in furtherance of a common intention to insult and intimidate the informant

Since the allegations prima facie established an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the Court reasoned that the Special Judge correctly determined that the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable due to the mandate of Section 18

The Court found no illegality or justifiable reason to interfere with the lower court's decision in exercise of its powers under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act

The Court upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Koderma, and vacated the interim relief previously granted to the appellants

The Registry was directed to inform the lower court of the decision immediately