Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under the SC/ST (POA) Act if prima facie evidence exists, but prior disputes must be considered to prevent false implications.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST POA Act, 2018' for short] challenging order dated 31.01.2026 in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Manjery, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime No.68/2026 of Malappuram Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though, notice has been served upon the 3^rd respondent, he did not appear.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘defacto complainant’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 08.00 hours on 11.01.2026, the accused, who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and being aware of the caste identity of the defacto complainant as a member of Scheduled Caste community, called caste name of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill him, due to animosity arose out of a boundary dispute in between them and thereby the defacto complainant was abused within public view. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, by the accused.

5. While pressing for interference in the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that, the accused is innocent and the entire case has been foisted against him to wreak vengeance, since he had filed suit as O.S. No.235/2024 before the Munsiff Court, Manjery, seeking prohibitory injunction restraining trespass upon his property by the defacto complainant and others, as early on 31.05.2024, where the defacto complainant herein got arrayed as the 3^rd defendant. Therefore, prima facie, the allegations are false and same could not be the basis to proceed against the accused. Further, the learned counsel for the accused offered co-operation of the accused in the matter of investigation. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused pressed for interference in the impugned order and grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the plea of pre-arrest bail and submitted that going through the FIS, the ingredients for the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act to be gathered prima facie and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the order of the Special Judge is only to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal.

7. On perusal of the FIS, it could be seen that, at about 08.00 hours on 11.01.2026, there was a quarrel in between the defacto complainant and the accused regarding the boundary separating their properties and during exchange of words, the accused alleged to have called the caste name of the defacto complainant, within public view, wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill him.

8. It is the settled law that, when prima facie commission of offence/offences punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out, grant of anticipatory bail is legally barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and grant of anticipatory bail is permissible only if the prosecution allegations in toto do not substantiate, prima facie, offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

9. Thus, while considering anticipatory bail plea