Statutory bar on anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act is inapplicable if allegations fail to prima facie disclose ingredients of the offence.

The petitioner, a member of the District Development Council, sought pre-arrest bail after her application was rejected by the Trial Court on 21.01.2026

The prosecution alleged that on 08.01.2026, during a public road inauguration, the petitioner and her sons assaulted the complainant and used the caste-based derogatory slur "Chinal," knowing the complainant belongs to the ‘Megh’ community (Scheduled Caste)

An FIR was registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act

The petitioner contended that "Chinal" is not a caste name but a term referring to religious symbol carriers, and that the allegations were politically motivated

The Court relied on Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, which bar the application of Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) for offences under the Act

The Court held that this bar does not apply if the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case, following the precedents in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India

Under Section 3(1)(s), the abuse must be "by caste name" in public view with the intent to humiliate, as clarified in Keshaw Mahto v. State of Bihar

The Court observed that while the investigating agency claimed witness statements linked the word "Chinal" to the "Megh" caste, the Court must scrutinize the substance of the allegations to prevent the misuse of special laws for persecution

Upon reviewing the electronic evidence, including video recordings of the incident and a subsequent press conference, the Court found that while a physical scuffle was visible, there was no audible or discernible evidence of caste-based slurs being uttered in public view

The Court determined that the transcript did not prima facie indicate that the insults were directed at the complainant’s caste identity as required by Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s)

Consequently, since the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not established at the prima facie stage, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail was deemed inapplicable

It held that the remedy of pre-arrest bail is available if the FIR/complaint lacks the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act

The petitioner was directed to be released on a surety bond of Rs. 25,000 in the event of arrest, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and not tampering with evidence

The Court clarified that this order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the ongoing trial