The court held that under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the statutory bar in Section 18 precludes the granting of anticipatory bail when offences under the Act are prima facie established against the accused, necessitating custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.259/2026 of Payyannur Police Station, challenging the order passed in B.A No.482/2026 dated 08.05.2026, whereby the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant / accused was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3.The appellant herein is arrayed as accused in Crime No.259/2026 of Payyannur Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable u/s. 143(4) and 75(l) (ii) of BNS, 7 rlw s.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (the POCSO Act for short hereinafter) and u/ss.3(l)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (the SC/ST (PoA) Act for short hereinafter)

4.The prosecution allegation is that at 9.30 a.m on

13.04.2026, the appellant who does not belong to either scheduled cast or Scheduled Tribe community, had taken the minor girl who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe community in a car to room No.109 of PK Residency situated at Pallikkara, with sexual intent, and from there, he wanted her to fulfill his sexual purpose and when the victim objected him, he forcefully laid her to the cot in the room and sexually assaulted her by kissing on her cheek and neck. Hence, the appellant / accused committed the aforesaid offences.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent of the offences alleged against him are false. It is submitted that the victim and her family got acquaintance with the appellant during a pilgrimage undertaken about six months ago. Subsequently, the victim approached the appellant’s wife, who runs a medical business under the name 'Medicare' dealing with the distribution of surgical items, seeking employment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present case has been falsely foisted against him. The learned counsel therefore contended that the appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail and is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, as a pre- requisite for grant of pre-arrest bail. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant/victim, she did not enter appearance.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant, contending that serious allegations have been raised against him. It is further submitted that, if the appellant would be granted anticipatory bail, he would influence and intimidate the victim and the witnesses. Further the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act to grant anticipatory bail squarely apply in this case.

7. On perusal of the records, it is discernible that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. The victim is a minor girl and the offences alleged under the POCSO Act and under the SC/ST (PoA Act) are specifically made out. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST PoA Act would apply and therefore anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case where the custodial interrogation of the appellant are absolutely necessary to effectuate eventful investigation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judge. The impugned order is upheld.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, with a direction to the appellant to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith or else the investigating officer is at liberty to arrest and interrogate the appellant.