The SC/ST Act’s anticipatory-bail bar does not apply absent a prima facie case.

In brief

The question

Whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act that barred anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A.

The court held

The appeal was allowed, and accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 were granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 208/2026, subject to conditions.

It also directed

They were required to appear before the trial Court within 15 days and secure regular bail, execute personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like amount, remain within the trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission, refrain from threatening or tampering with witnesses, appear when directed, and attend trial regularly.

The Court stated that breach of any condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

01Facts

The complainant alleged that on 13 August 2026 the appellants abused his brother’s wife by reference to her caste while she washed vessels near their house.

pp. 3–4

When the complainant and his father questioned them, the appellants allegedly assaulted them with a club and stones, causing injuries.

pp. 3–4

Gadag Rural Police registered Crime No. 208/2026 under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

pp. 3–4

A counter-complaint was also registered as Crime No. 209/2026; accused No. 2 in Crime No. 208/2026 had been granted regular bail, and the complainant’s family members in the counter-case had obtained anticipatory bail.

pp. 4–6

After the Sessions Court rejected their anticipatory-bail application, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 2, 4–5

The State opposed relief, relying on the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act.

p. 7

02Issues

i.Whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act that barred anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A.

pp. 7–8

ii.Whether accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 were entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, the counter-complaint, the injuries, and the status of the investigation.

pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act generally bar anticipatory bail for offences under the Act.

p. 7

However, relying on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, the Court stated that where the complaint does not disclose prima facie material to constitute an offence under the Act, the bar does not prevent the Court from exercising discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

p. 7

The alleged offences in this case were under Sections 189(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 read with Section 190 of the BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

p. 3, 8

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 189 Section 191 Section 115 Section 118 Section 351 Section 352 Section 190

04Reasoning

The Court considered the alleged incident in the context of a dispute over washing vessels, the existence of a counter-complaint, and the wound certificates, which recorded simple injuries to the complainant and his father.

pp. 7–8

It also noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

p. 8

On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail, notwithstanding the statutory bar, applying the exception recognized in Prathvi Raj Chauhan.

pp. 7–8