The SC/ST Act’s anticipatory-bail bar does not apply absent a prima facie allegation of caste abuse in public view.

The appellants, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, challenged the Sessions Court’s rejection of their application for anticipatory bail in a case arising from an alleged quarrel on 22 May 2026 in agricultural land.

The complaint alleged that the complainant was abused by reference to her caste.

The case involved offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 115(2), 329(3), 351(3) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed against the appellants; non-bailable warrants had subsequently been issued.

1. Whether the appellants had shown sufficient grounds to set aside the rejection of anticipatory bail and obtain such relief.

2. Whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act, thereby attracting the statutory bar to anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A.

Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act bar anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the Act is disclosed; however, under Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, the bar does not apply where the complaint fails, on its face, to make out such a case.

For the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), the Court considered whether the alleged caste-based abuse occurred in a place “within public view”; the fact that an incident occurred on agricultural land does not, by itself, establish that the place was outside public view.

The Court also considered the completion of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet and the nature of the BNS offences in assessing the bail application.

The Court found that the material before it did not sufficiently establish, prima facie, that the alleged caste-based abuse occurred in a place within public view, and therefore the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A was not attracted on the material then available.

It did not treat the agricultural setting alone as conclusive, but assessed whether the public-view ingredient was shown in the circumstances of this case.

The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the apparent need for custodial interrogation; the alleged BNS offences were also not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The later issuance of non-bailable warrants did not, by itself, prevent consideration of anticipatory bail.

It directed that, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 71/2026, the appellants be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions including execution of bonds, surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of receiving a certified copy, cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses and appearance before the Trial Court.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail appeal and should not affect the trial on the merits.