Unexplained six-month delay in lodging caste-abuse FIR justified anticipatory bail despite Section 18 bar.

The appellants, Dulikeshan Sahu and Kiran Sahu, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 127/2026 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 10 November 2025, while the complainant Manbodh Kodaku and his relatives were harvesting crops, a dispute arose between the parties and the appellants abused the complainant party by referring to their caste.

The FIR was lodged on 6 May 2026, approximately six months after the alleged incident.

The appellants contended that the parties were involved in a land dispute and that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, had also taken place; they relied on the subsequent order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 30 June 2026.

The Special Judge rejected their application for anticipatory bail by order dated 30 May 2026, leading to the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act precluded consideration of the appellants’ application for anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the unexplained delay of approximately six months in lodging the FIR justified granting anticipatory bail to the appellants.

Whether the allegations prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the order refusing anticipatory bail.

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act ordinarily bars the grant of anticipatory bail where the allegations disclose an offence under the Act; the Court expressly acknowledged the existence of this statutory bar.

The complainant relied on Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 869, for the proposition that the bar under Section 18 is stringent and applies where the statutory offence is prima facie made out.

The relevant penal provisions alleged were Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), concerning intentional insult or intimidation and caste-based abuse in a place within public view, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court also considered the unexplained and substantial delay in lodging the FIR as relevant to the grant of pre-arrest protection.

The Court noted that the FIR alleged caste-based abuse and that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act ordinarily operates as a bar against anticipatory bail.

However, on examination of the case diary and surrounding circumstances, it found that the alleged incident occurred on 10 November 2025 whereas the FIR was lodged only on 6 May 2026, after an unexplained delay of approximately six months.

The Court reasoned that if caste-based abusive words had in fact been used, the complainant would ordinarily have approached the police soon after the incident.

It held that the effect and credibility of the allegations could ultimately be tested during trial while recording evidence, and treated the unexplained delay as sufficient in the circumstances to grant anticipatory bail.

Although the Court acknowledged the statutory bar under Section 18, it allowed the appeal on the basis of the infirmity arising from the delayed FIR.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Dulikeshan Sahu and Kiran Sahu be released on bail upon execution of personal bonds with one local surety each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to conditions prohibiting witness inducement or intimidation, interference with a fair trial, failure to appear before the trial court, non-compliance with identity-document requirements, and involvement in similar offences.