Anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act can be granted if allegations do not prima facie support the charges.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2026 The 4^th accused in Crime No.577/2025 of Kalikavu Police Station, Malappuram, filed this appeal challenging the order in Crl.M.P. No.3346 of 2025 dated 22.10.2026, on the files of the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (for short, ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’), whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Special Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Despite notice served upon the defacto complainant to ensure the mandatory hearing envisaged under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the defacto complainant did not turn up.

3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section s 126 (2), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1) r/w Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, by the accused.

4. The Prosecution allegation is that on

12.09.2025 at 9.00 p.m., at Adakkakundu Angadi, the de facto complainant (belonging to ST-Kattunayakan community) along with his friends (belonging to SC - Cheruma community) were allegedly abused by calling their caste names by accused Nos. 1 to 4 namely Fasil, Shibu, Shahbas and Kirnan (Muhsin). It is further alleged that the accused had restrained them, slapped, kicked and assaulted them with a concrete block. It is further alleged that accused No.2 attempted to hit one Shilju on his head with a concrete block. Thus, the prosecution alleges that the accused persons have committed the above said offences.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/4th accused is innocent and the allegations of the prosecution are false. According to him, in the FIS, there is a long sentence allegedly used by all the accused together, calling the caste name of the defacto complainant and others, and on the said basis, the prosecution alleges the commission of SC/ST (PoA) Act offences, by the accused. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant further that, apart from the allegations that all the accused jointly called and abused the defacto complainant and others by calling their caste name, no other overt acts are alleged against the appellant/4th accused.

6. It is also submitted that prima facie, the prosecution’s allegation regarding the commission of an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018, by the appellant/4th accused is not made out, and therefore, he is entitled to anticipatory bail after setting aside of the order.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor placed the Case Diary along with the FIS and other statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. It is submitted that there is an allegation against the appellant/4th accused that he also called the caste name of the defacto complainant and others in a public place within public view, and therefore, prima facie, the offences are made out. In view of the matter, grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018. Thus, grant of anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. It is the settled law that when the prosecution records prima facie, indicate that the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 are made, grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018. Similarly, when the prosecution allegations are taken together, the same do not disclose prima facie, commission of offences under the SC/ST (Po