The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case exists under the SC/ST Act, based on judicial discretion and the specifics of the case.

JUDGMENT

Appellants’ application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri, by its order dated

27.11.2025. This appeal is in challenge of the said order.

2. Appellants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1165 of 2023 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 324(2), 329(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’), apart from Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘ SC/ST Act ’).

3. According to the prosecution, on 11.10.2025, due to an enmity towards the defaco complainant, the accused had trespassed into her house and fisted on the chest of the defacto complainant’s son, and when the defacto complainant and her husband intervened, the second accused pushed them down and also beat the defacto complainant, apart from calling their caste name, and even committed mischief by destroying the window and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The incident that has led to the registration of the present FIR has its genesis in the circumstances narrated in Crime No.1164 of

2025. After the accused had assaulted the defacto complainant at 03.00 p.m on 10.10.2025, on the next day, they are alleged to have again assaulted the son of the defacto complainant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that, there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants other than Crime No.1165 of 2025, which is connected with the incident in the morning.

7. Appellants and the defacto complainant are alleged to be close friends. According to the defacto complainant the first appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,500/- from him, and when he demanded repayment, they assaulted him. Appellants, on the other hand, alleged that the money was borrowed by the defacto complainant and it was requested to be repaid, raising this false allegation and filed the complaint.

8. Normally, when an offence under the SC/ST Act is alleged, the Court cannot grant anticipatory bail. However, in the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others [ 2020 (4) SCC 727 ], the Supreme Court had observed that in cases where the allegations do not prima facie indicate any offence under the SC/ST Act , the Court has power to grant anticipatory bail.

9. In the decision in Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249], the Supreme Court had observed that when an application for anticipatory bail is being considered by the Court in respect of a crime where the offences under the SC/ST Act are alleged, the Court must identify whether any prima facie case is made out or not. If no such case is made out, the Court is empowered to grant anticipatory bail. On the other hand, if such a prima facie case is made out, the Court should not protect the accused. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that the existence of a prima facie case is to be identified to avoid unnecessary humiliation to the accused, and the Court should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the complaint/FIR in fact discloses the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act or not. It was further observed that the Court must apply its judicial mind, which assumes importance, especially when the said finding has the effect of precluding the accused person from seeking anticipatory bail.

10. Similarly, in the decision in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Utt