Anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act where prima facie offenses are established.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2026 Order in Crl.MP.No.263/2025, dated 06.01.2026 on the files of the Special Court for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ hereinafter) Cases, Kottarakkara, dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, at the instance of the appellant herein, who is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1760/2025 of Chavara Police Station, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served upon the de facto complainant, she did not turn up. 3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 118(1), 329(3), 351(2), 74 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and under Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, by the accused.

4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 6.30 p.m. on 10.12.2025, accused Nos.1 and 2, who are not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, criminally trespassed upon the sit out of the house of the de facto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, and thereafter, the 1^st accused abused her by calling her caste name and assaulted the de facto complainant with ‘idivala’ and scissors possessed by him and thereby, they caused serious injuries to the de facto complainant and in turn, the de facto complainant underwent hospitalisation.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/1^st accused that the appellant is innocent and this incident was occurred due to an earlier dispute in between the son of the de facto complainant and two other persons involved in Annexure 3 FIR. It is also pointed out that the de facto complainant did not sustain any serious injuries and there was no deliberate intention on the part of the accused to cause harm to the de facto complainant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to justify that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply, by substantiating that no prima facie case is made out. The learned counsel offered co- operation in the matter of investigation and pressed for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant, after upsetting the order impugned.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant and submitted that in this case, the allegations are well supported by the medical evidence prepared at 7.35 p.m. on 10.12.2025, showing injuries. Therefore, prima facie, the offences are made out and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail is totally barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

7. 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.

8. In this case, the specific allegation against 1^st accused is that he trespassed upon the house of the de facto complainant and thereafter, abused the de facto complainant by calling her caste name and beaten her by using ‘idivala’ and scissors possessed by the 1^st accused, and caused serious injuries to the de facto complainant. The said allegation is fully justified prima facie as per the statement of the de facto complainant and as per the medical certificate issued from Taluk Hospital, Neendakara, Kollam, showing injuries as under:

● C/o pain,injury,swelling over Left cheek,Pain abdomen 

L/E Contusion + left cheek Lacerated wound 3x1x7cm