Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases under the SC/ST Act unless there is no prima facie evidence of the offense. This safeguards the rights of Scheduled Caste individuals against exploitation.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of order in Crl.M.C.No.1019/2022 dated 27.05.2022 on the file of the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Ernakulam under the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as `the SC/ST Act' for convenience], in Crime No.472/2022 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station. Accused is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the officials of the State of Kerala and the 4th respondent herein is the defacto complainant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents 1 to 3, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the 4th respondent, the defacto complainant in this matter, as mandated under Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Short facts: The prosecution would allege that the appellant/accused herein committed offences under Section 376 (2)(n), 406, 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is also alleged that the defacto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, worked at NCC Office on temporary basis in the year 2009 and she met the appellant/accused, who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, during 2009. Thereafter, the defacto complainant maintained a healthy relationship with the accused and accordingly the accused promised to marry the defacto complainant. During the affectionate relationship, the appellant/accused shared his issues with his wife and the intention to divorce and offered to marry the defacto complainant.

4. While so, the defacto complainant secured permanent job at MPEDA during the year 2013 and she started her residence at the BSNL Quarters. Accordingly, the appellant/accused started to visit the defacto complainant on the promise to marry her, and she believed his words. Keeping the relationship, believing the promise of marriage, the defacto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant/accused herein on several occasions. He also borrowed money from the defacto complaimant. When she demanded back the money, the appellant/accused threatened that he would post her nude visuals in the social media. She obtained loan from various financial institutions and gave that money to the appellant/accused and accordingly he received Rs.8 lakh and the appellant/accused returned back Rs.2 lakh to the defacto complainant. The appellant/accused continued these acts till February, 2022. The defacto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the appellant/accused humiliated her by calling her caste name and also asked her that she secured the job only because she belonged to Scheduled Caste community. On the above facts, Crime No.472/2022 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station was registered alleging commission of the above offences.

5. Apprehending arrest in the above case, the appellant herein filed bail application before the Special Court seeking pre- arrest bail. The learned Special Judge considered the rival contentions after detailed hearing and finally dismissed the application.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that a cordial relationship was maintained by the complainant with the accused starting from 2013, and collapse of the relationship led to registration of this crime. According to the learned counsel, serious offences alleged against the accused herein is one under Section 376 (2)(n) of I.P.C along with offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act would not attract in this case on any stretch of imagination since the same would attract only against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in general. He would submit further that either the offences alleged to be committed under the I.P.C or the offences alleged to be committed under Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) or 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act would not attract in this case. It is argued that the sexual in