Anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act where the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of offences committed against members of scheduled castes and tribes involving physical injury and weapons necessitating custodial investigation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in Crime No.168 of 2026 on the files of Nedumangad Police Station, challenging the order dated 24.03.2026 in Crl.M.C.No. 11 of 2026 on the files of the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, the SC/ST (PoA) Act), whereby anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Special Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ 1^st accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The de facto complainant did not appear before this Court despite receipt of notice through the SHO concerned. The prosecution case is that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296(B), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324(5) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 08:05 p.m. on

19.02.2026, when the injured/de facto complainant purchased fruits from the fruit stall run by the appellant/ 1^st accused and informed that the fruits were decayed, the appellant/1^st accused assaulted that de facto complainant as well as his father while they were attempting to return from the fruit stall. According to the prosecution, apart from the appellant/1^st accused, 25 other persons also attacked them. Accordingly, the de facto complainant as well as his father sustained serious injuries.

5. When the appellant/1^st accused moved for anticipatory bail before the Special Court, the same was dismissed holding that the offences are prima facie made out and that the Bar under Section 18 of the the SC/ST(PoA) Act would be attracted.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, in fact, the de facto complainant attacked the appellant and he also sustained injuries. Even though, he had filed Annexure A3 complaint on 20.02.2026, no crime was registered. According to her, as per Annexure A2, the appellant was also hospitalised as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the occurrence.

Therefore, the learned counsel argued that the appellant is innocent and that no offence prima facie made out against him. Thus, the Bar under Section 18 SC/ST (POA) Act, does not apply and the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the strength of the materials from the case diary including the statements of the victim and witnesses, submitted that the 1^st and 2^nd accused along with others jointly attacked the de facto complainant and his father and they sustained injuries. It is also noted that, as per the treatment certificate issued by Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram dated 30.03.2026, the de facto complainant was admitted on 19.02.2026 and during examination it was found that he had sustained fracture of the left orbit and hemosinus left maxillary sinus, though the father of the de facto complainant sustained only soft tissue injuries.

8. Going through the prosecution records supported by the discharge certificate, offences including Section 118(2) of the BNS are prima facie made out, warranting custodial interrogation of the petitioner as well as recovery of weapons and other materials. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Further, the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are also prima facie made out and therefore the Bar under Section 18 would apply.

Therefore, the challenge against the order of the Special Court fails, and this appeal is dismissed on merits, with liberty to the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation, including arrest of the appellant,