Anticipatory Bail Bar Under SC/ST Act Applies When Prima Facie Case Made Out: Kerala High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail
Prosecution records showed commission of offences under SC/ST Act and BNS
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to two accused persons after holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in 2018 (SC/ST Act, 2018) squarely applies where prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case under the Act.
Reiterating the settled law, the Court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 2018 is not absolute, but would operate in the matter as the prosecution records conclusively showed commission of offences under the SC/ST Act as well as non-bailable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen opined, “As per Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018, application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply in relation to offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018. In the same phraseology, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, also has no application in relation to offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018. Thus, grant of anticipatory bail is barred and the bar would apply when the prosecution materials prima facie show commission of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018”.
Accordingly, while dismissing the criminal appeal, the bench confirmed the order of the Special Court rejecting the appellants’ plea for pre-arrest bail and directed them to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith.
Advocate K.R. Rajkumar appeared for the petitioner, and Noushad K.A, Sr. Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, an incident allegedly occurred on 28-09-2025, during which the accused persons were stated to have hurled obscene caste-based abuses, intimidated the de facto complainant with death threats, and assaulted him and others using an iron rod, causing serious injuries. It was also alleged that the accused damaged the autorickshaw belonging to the complainant.
The FIR invoked multiple provisions punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 110, 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 2018 .
On perusal of the FIS and wound certificate, the Court noted that the injured had sustained head injuries and other bodily harm, requiring further medical examination. The Bench held that the prosecution records prima facie established the ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act, 2018 as well as non-bailable offences under the BNS.
The Court further observed that since the accused and the complainant were known to each other, the knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant could be reasonably inferred under Section 8 of the SC/ST Act, 2018.
The Bench also noted that custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon were necessary for effective investigation, and that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would impede the investigation.
Cause Title: Athul .P State Of Kerala & Another [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:1998]
Appearance:
Petitioner: K.R. Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, R.K. Rakesh, Sreelakshmi P.S., Nandida Sebastian, Advocates
Respondent: Noushad.K.A, Sr. Public Prosecutor