The SC/ST Act’s anticipatory-bail bar does not apply where the complaint lacks a prima facie offence.

The appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenged the Special Court’s rejection of the appellants’ applications for anticipatory bail in Crime No. 123/2026 of Kulgod Police Station.

The complaint alleged that a dispute arose over land granted to the complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, after accused No. 1 claimed to have purchased the same land.

The accused were alleged to have abused the complainant and other victims by referring to their caste, assaulted them, and attempted to strangle the complainant.

The appellants denied the allegations, asserted that the complaint arose from a pending civil dispute, and relied, among other things, on the three-day delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of serious injuries.

The State opposed bail, relying on the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act and the seriousness of the alleged offences.

Whether the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act applied where the appellants contended that the complaint did not disclose a prima facie offence under that Act.

Whether the appellants had made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case.

Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act ordinarily exclude the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to offences under that Act.

However, relying on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, the Court stated that the statutory bar does not apply where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the applicability of the Act.

The appeals were brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court acknowledged the statutory bar but applied the Prathvi Raj Chauhan exception for cases in which the complaint fails to make out a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act.

It noted the appellants’ contention that the allegations arose from a civil land dispute and, having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail.

The judgment does not set out a detailed assessment of the alleged caste-based words or separately explain why the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case under the Act.

It directed that, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 123/2026, each appellant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions including surrender to the Investigating Officer within 15 days of receipt of the certified order, cooperation with the investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.

The prosecution was permitted to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach of the conditions.