The statutory bar against anticipatory bail under special legislation operates effectively when a prima facie case is established through investigation. Parity with a co-accused is not an absolute right, and the court must prioritize the necessity of custodial interrogation when serious offences and potential conspiracy are involved.

ORDER :

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.

1. Admit. Learned APP waives service of notice of admission for the respondent-State. Though notice is served to respondent No.2, he remained absent.

2. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities Act"), the appellants have challenged the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Criminal Misc. Application No.1747 of 2025, whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected their application for anticipatory bail. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order and to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No.11205035251149 of 2025 registered with Nakhatrana Police Station, Kachchh-Bhuj for the offences punishable under Sections 108 , 308(2), 115(2), 351(2), 296(b) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNS"), Sections 40 and 44 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, a rickshaw driver, alleged that his father had borrowed a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from accused No.1, Mavjibhai Jadav, in various installments through cash and online transactions for meeting medical expenses. It is alleged that despite the loan amount being Rs.1,00,000/-, accused No.1 started demanding Rs.4,00,000/- and subjected the deceased to continuous harassment. About 15 to 20 days prior to the incident, the deceased was allegedly called to the field of accused No.1, where he was assaulted by two unknown persons and threatened to repay Rs.4,00,000/-. Owing to the alleged pressure and harassment, the deceased consumed acid on 12.11.2025 and was admitted to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on the following day. It is alleged that the deceased took the extreme step due to his inability to meet the unlawful demand of the accused, leading to the registration of the impugned FIR at Nakhatrana Police Station on 13.11.2025.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that both the applicants are transgender persons and have been falsely implicated in the present offence. It was contended that the applicants have no role whatsoever in the commission of the alleged offence and that no offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against them. It was further submitted that the applicants neither assaulted the deceased nor participated in the alleged incident in any manner. Mere presence at the place of occurrence, even if assumed, cannot be a ground to implicate them in the crime. The applicants have been arraigned as accused solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons. It was argued that the alleged monetary transaction was exclusively between accused No.1 and the deceased, who had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, and the present applicants had no concern with the said transaction. It was further submitted that a co-accused has already been released on regular bail and, therefore, the present applicants are entitled to the benefit of parity. The applicants are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, have no criminal antecedents, and hence, it was prayed that the p