***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Kaithal dismissing the application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.61 dated 15.04.2026 registered under Sections 296, 299 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act (Section 109 of BNS and Section 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1989 (hereinafter in short as ‘SC/ST Act’), at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the appellant had harassed the complainant and threatened to kill her and abused her in the name of her caste. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the complainant in the FIR has specifically stated that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Reserved Community and has described the petitioner belonging to the General Caste, however, the complainant does not belong to SC/ST caste and the caste certificate given by her is made after registration of present FIR. He argued that no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out as on bare perusal of FIR, it is clear that the alleged occurrence did not take place at a public place and therefore, the stringent provisions of SC/ST Act have also been misused. He further argued that the present FIR is an afterthought of the complainant only to falsely implicate the appellant. He argued that if the contents of the FIR are taken to be true, even then no specific role has been attributed to the appellant. No recovery is to be effected from the appellant. He further argued that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required for any recovery and she is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the appellant are serious in nature. She argued that the appellant has been specifically named in the FIR and abused the complainant in the name of her caste. She further submitted that grant of anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of SC/ST Act. She has further submitted that the appellant is involved in one more case meaning thereby she is a habitual offender. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant, has contended that the appellant has played an active role in the crime and, thus, do not deserve the concession of bail.

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 alleged occurrence does not prima facie appear to have taken place within public view so as to attract the rigours of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding applicability of the provisions of the Act would require deeper examination during trial. Moreover, no specific overt act has been attributed to the appellant and no recovery is stated to be effected from her. The mere pendency of another case against the appellant, in the absence of any conviction, cannot by itself be a ground to deny the concession of anticipatory bail. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

8. In these circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail and the bar of section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. In Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case of commission of an offence under the Act is not made out or if it can be shown that the allegations were false.

9. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr., 2025 AIR (SC) 4083; has held that in a given case if on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

"6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr. PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off

6.1. The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.

6.2. Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial."

.......emphasis supplied

10. Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the present appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Kaithal is set aside, and the appellant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest, subject to her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.

11. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Appeal allowed.

********