The court affirmed that prima facie allegations warrant custodial investigation under the SC/ST (POA) Act, denying bail based on the necessity of meaningful investigation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 06^th day of March, 2026 This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ hereinafter), challenging the order dated 20.02.2026 in B.A.No.03/2026 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Kottarakkara, dismissing the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the appellant herein, who is the accused in Crime No.258/2026 of Kottarakkara Police Station.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served upon the de facto complainant, she did not appear.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 69 and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the accused.

4. The precise allegation is that the accused, who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, maintained an affair with the de facto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, and had repeated sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the parents of both parties met and decided to conduct the marriage after one year. Thereafter, to the utter dismay of the de facto complainant, it was noticed that the accused deviated from the promise of marriage and fixed his marriage with another woman, thereby cheated the de facto complainant and committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the facts of the case would indicate a consensual relationship and the same would not attract the offence of rape, on going through the FIS, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the allegation is that the accused, who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, maintained an affair with the de facto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, and had repeated sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the parents of both parties met and decided to conduct the marriage after one year. Thereafter, to the utter dismay of the de facto complainant, it was noticed that the accused deviated from the promise of marriage and fixed his marriage with another woman and thereby cheated the de facto complainant. On reading the genesis of the case, prima facie, the allegations are specifically made out and the ingredients for the offences alleged also made out prima facie. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, would apply. Hence, plea for anticipatory bail is liable to fail. Also, arrest and custodial interrogation of the appellant/accused, are necessary to accomplish a meaningful investigation. In such a case, grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be considered.

6. In view of the above, the order impugned is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

7. There shall be a direction to the appellant/accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer, forthwith, and on failure to do so, the Investigating Officer shall proceed against the appellant/accused, in accordance with law to effectuate meaningful investigation with a view to accomplish successful prosecution.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith.