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

The appeals arose from Crime No. 116/2026, registered by Hukkeri Police for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The complaint alleged that the accused obstructed the complainant on a public road, threatened and assaulted him, and abused Rayappa Shivappa Talawar by referring to his caste when he intervened.

The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which the Special Court rejected on the ground that Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act barred the application.

They appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the Act.

1. Whether the allegations prima facie disclosed the ingredients of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, such that the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18-A applied.

2. Whether the appellants had made out a case for anticipatory bail, having regard to the allegations, their individual roles and the investigation’s requirements.

Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act restrict the application of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

However, under Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, that statutory bar does not apply where the complaint does not prima facie disclose an offence under the Act.

The court must assess whether the pleaded facts disclose the statutory ingredients, without undertaking a detailed appreciation of evidence at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The court treated the alleged caste-based abuse of Rayappa Talawar as the principal basis for invoking the Act.

Although his not having filed the complaint was not, by itself, determinative, the court found that the allegations, as pleaded, did not sufficiently disclose the statutory ingredients of the invoked offences.

It also considered the prior complaint between the parties, the allegations and roles attributed to the appellants, and the absence of material showing a need for their custodial interrogation; it held that the investigation could be protected through conditions.