Anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, unless the court finds that the offense is prima facie not made out based on the averments in the FIR.

ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred challenging the order dated 14.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act 1989, Dewas in B.A.No.156/2026, whereby the application for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Crime No.1151/2025 registered at Police Station Bank Note Press, District- Dewas (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 190 , 191(2), 191(3), 296(B), 115(2), 324(4), 331(6), 351(3), 118(1) of the of BNS, 2023 and under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been rejected.

2. The allegations in the FIR are that victims in this case belongs to scheduled caste community whereas appellants/ accused does not belongs to SC or ST community. They are neighbours. Incident occurred at 7:30 p.m. on 11.12.2025 in which appellant alongwith other accused persons entered in the house of the victim after preparing to assault them and caused injuries to Tajkaran, Sanjay, Prahlad, Ashok, Ajay and Kanhaiya using casteism remarks. Co-accused Brijesh used knife as a weapon of offences. Ajay Parmar sustained Linear fracture on left parito temporal bone seen extending upto tegmen mastoidium and anterior inferior bony wall of EAC with associated mild hemotympanum and Sanjay sustained the injury in finger of his right hand that is reported to be grievous in nature. Injury of Prahlad is also reported to be grievous in nature. Trial court rejected the application recording the findings that offences under section 331(6) of the BNS, 2023 is punishable for a term which may extended to 10 years (SIC 14 years) and attracts the provisions of section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 accordingly no case is made out for anticipatory bail to the appellants/accused persons.

3. Challenging the impugned order this criminal appeal is preferred on the ground that victims/ complainants in this case are accused persons in a case bearing crime No.1150/2025 registered at P.S. Bank Note Press, District Dewas (MP). The allegations against the present appellants are recorded to the offences punishable for 7 years except the offfence under section 331 of the BNS, 2023. Appellants and complainants resides in the same village in front of each other's house. Complaint have been lodged only to falsely implicate them. There is no ingredients attracting the offence under section 331(6) of the BNS, 2023.

4. Heard.

5. Counsel for the State opposed the criminal appeal on the ground that contents of the FIR report mentions that all the accused persons including the appellants entered in the house of the victims using force after sun set. Accordingly, the provisions of section 331(6) of the BNS, 2023 attracts in this case. As per the appellants themselves their houses are opposite to each other and they are aware about the schedule caste identity of the victims. Presumption under section 8(c) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 comes into application. Accordingly trial court committed no illegality in recording the finding that the provisions of section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies in this case. Appellant- Ramchandra and Appellant Bunty have significant criminal antecedents. Accordingly, no case for bail to the appellants is made out.

6. Perused the record.

7. The scope of anticipatory bail as mentioned in case of Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr. ; 2025 INSC 1067, Hon'ble Apex Cout has laid down the parameters in relation to the appli