Anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act if the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of an offence under Section 3, particularly where casteist slurs are used in a public place and in public view.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115 , 127(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ and Section 3 of ‘the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’. For the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. As per appellant, in the abovementioned case, he had approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST Act, for grant of anticipatory bail, but the learned Special Judge, by virtue of order dated 24.03.2026, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, dismissed the application for anticipatory bail.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ respondent No.2), hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only. It was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belonged to Scheduled Castes, and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, namely ‘Hemant’, was under attack by some assailants, who were armed with sticks and steel rods, at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per respondent No.2, he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and 8-10 other persons had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2, his brother told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, thrashed him with sticks and steel rods, while using casteist slurs.

4. The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he filed a complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Mahesh’, when they were using casteist abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned complaint no action was taken against the culprits.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that by cooking-up a false story, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the contents of the FIR in themselves shows that any offence under any provision of SC/ST Act is not made out in the present case, and therefore, rejection of bail application, filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail, is devoid of merit.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that baring Section-3 of SC/ST Act, all the offences alleged in the FIR are minor in nature, and that there is no allegation that any grievous injury was inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 or any other family member. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the instant case is the perfect example of sheer misuse of Section-3 of SC/ST Act,