Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act can be granted when the allegations do not establish a prima facie case within public view.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 17-12-2025 Heard Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants; Mr. Sunny Prasad, learned counsel for OP No.2 and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. PP for the State.

2. The appellants have preferred appeal under Section

14(A) (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the rejection of prayer for pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Begusarai in ABA No.625 of 2024 arising out of Samho PS Case No.05 of 2024, registered for the offenes under Sections 341 , 323, 447, 448, 325, 307, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., appellants along with other accused persons had entered into the house of the informant and abused and assaulted her and her son by means of lathi-danda causing injury. Informant belongs to Scheduled Caste and, as such, FIR under Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and

3(2)(va) has been lodged for abusing and taking caste name.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the incident has taken place inside the house of the informant and the same is not in public view. No specific allegation has been made against the appellants for using abusive language or taking caste name of the informant, rather, the specific allegation of taking caste name and assaulting the informant is against one Rahul Yadav. He further submitted that injury sustained by the son of the informant has been opined by the doctor to be simple in nature. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the allegation being general and omnibus, the appellants seek to be released on pre-

arrest bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Juvraj Jain & Anr. in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.8169 of 2025, while emphasizing the operational ambit of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, held that allowing anticipatory bail by the High Court was unwarranted. On these grounds, the appellants do not deserve to be released on bail and their case may be dismissed.

6. Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. P.P. submitted that in the recent judgment, the Apex Court while considering the scope of Section 18 of SC/ST Act has observed that only in the cases where offence can not be said to have been made out on a very prima facie consideration, the court may exercise discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused.

7. To appreciate the rival submissions, it will be apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)

(va) of SC/ST Act, which is inter alia as follows : -

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-

(1) (r) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

3 (2)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;"

8. The term “any place within public view” initially came for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through