IMPORTANT POINT
The court may grant anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act if the allegations against the accused are not substantiated and prior complaints exist.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 on the file of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Sessions Court) Alappuzha in Crl.M.C. No.598 of 2025, rejecting the application filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.292 of 2025 of Pulincunnu Police Station. The appellant is the 1^st accused in Crime No.292 of 2025 of Pulincunnu Police Station, which has been registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 74 of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

2. The allegation against the appellant is that, the appellant[ along with the co-accused in the case], trespassed into the residential property of the de facto complainant , at about 07.30 pm on 29.04.2025, and hurled abusive words by referring to the de facto complainant and the other victim by their caste name. It is alleged that the appellant along with the other accused also assaulted the de facto complainant as also one of his relatives, named Nirmala.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, actually the de facto complainant had trespassed into the house of the appellant in an inebriated stage, at about 09.00 pm on 30.04.2024, and had used abusive words when the wife and daughter of the appellant had come out of their house. It is submitted that, the wife and daughter of the appellant had filed a complaint against the de facto complainant and in order to get over the possibility of any action being taken against him in that complaint, a false complaint has been registered by the de facto complainant. It is submitted that, the de facto complainant is in the habit of filing complaints misusing the provisions of the SC/ST Act as is evident from the fact that several complaints have been filed by the de facto complainant in similar fashion against various persons in the locality. It is also alleged that the complaint filed by the wife and daughter of the appellant is prior in time to the complaint filed by the de facto complainant.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent oppose the grant of anticipatory bail. It is pointed out that there is a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail in cases alleging commission of offene under the SC/ST Act. It is submitted that, since the appellant has failed to make out any case to substantiate that the case against him is not sustainable, the application for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that, it is only when this Court comes to the conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out to invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act, can this Court grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, I am of the view that the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail. It is evident from the facts narrated above that the appellant had also filed a complaint against the de facto complainant alleging that the de facto complainant had trespassed into the house of the appellant and abused his wife and his daughter. The appellant’s wife has also filed a complaint in this regard and according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant is prior in time to the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent. No criminal antecedents are also reported against the appellant. Taking all these facts into consid