Anticipatory bail can be granted when prima facie evidence is insufficient to substantiate charges under SC/ST POA Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 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 12.02.2026 in B.A. No.10/2026 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Thrissur, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellant, who is the 1^st accused in Crime No.98/2026 of Anthikkad Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the defacto complainant, who appeared in person. Perused the verdict under challenge and the relevant materials available.

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

4. The prosecution case is that, at about 6.00 p.m.

on 06.01.2026, the accused persons, who belong to community other than Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in furtherance of their common intention, in pursuance of previous enmity, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, who belongs to Hindu - Vettuva community which is a scheduled caste, and voluntarily caused hurt to him with a wooden stick. They uttered some obscene words and called out his caste name. They have also criminally intimidated him and attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(2), 110 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNS ’ for short] and under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the accused persons.

5. While pressing for interference in the order impugned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ 1^st accused would submit that, the appellant is innocent and the allegations are false. According to him, in order to implicate the appellant/1^st accused in serious o under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the allegation of calling the caste name of the defacto complainant is stated in the FIS and the appellant is not even aware of the caste identity of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 118 (1) of the BNS and other offences could not be seen from the prosecution records. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused pressed for interference in the impugned order and grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellant/1^st accused.

6. The defacto complainant, who appeared in person, strongly opposed grant of bail initially to the 1^st accused on the submission that, if the appellant would be released on bail, he would disturb and repeat the assault against him. Later when he was informed that an order would be passed to protect his interest, he had stated that such an order would be suffice to address his grievance.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor also shared the arguments of the defacto complainant and submitted that, in this case, the specific overt acts are at the instance of the appellant/1^st accused, though the other accused were granted bail.

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. On scrutiny of the case records, the allegation is that, the defacto complainant, who belongs to Hindu – Vettuva (Scheduled Caste) comm