The bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply if the essential ingredient of the offence—specifically that the act occurred in "public view"—is missing, such as in cases of telephonic conversations.

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dismissing the application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.47 dated 15.02.2026 registered under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant insulted the complainant in the name of her caste over a tenancy dispute. Hence the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as there has been a longstanding tenancy-related dispute between the parties. He further submitted that the complainant party had threatened the appellant with false criminal cases, and the same had already been brought to the notice of the police by the appellant much prior to the registration of the present FIR. He contended that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour by the complainant with the sole purpose to pressurise the appellant into settling the tenancy dispute, which is already pending before the civil court between the parties. He further submitted that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR, as the alleged conversation between the parties took place on 23.01.2026, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 15.02.2026, which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution's case. He argued that the learned trial Court erroneously invoked the bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act without examining whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offence are made out from the record. He contended that the alleged conversation between the appellant and the complainant took place over a phone call, which cannot be said to have occurred in public view. Hence, the essential ingredient required to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act is missing. He further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and that the petitioner has clean antecedents. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the present appeal deserves to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned State counsel, had already filed status report, and relying upon the same she vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, stating that the offence committed by the appellant is serious in nature and the bar under section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable. Hence, she prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant has also vehemently opposed the present appeal and submitted that the appellant had intentionally insulted the complainant in the name of her caste over phone call. Hence, he prayed that the appellant deserves no concession from this Court, and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7. In the present appeal, the allegations against the appellant primarily stem from a telephonic conversation between the parties. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, the purported incident having occurred over a phone call cannot be construed as having taken place “in public view,”