1. Appellants’ application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri, by its order dated 27.11.2025. This appeal is in challenge of the said order.

2. Appellants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1165 of 2023 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 324(2), 329(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’), apart from Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, on 11.10.2025, due to an enmity towards the defaco complainant, the accused had trespassed into her house and fisted on the chest of the defacto complainant’s son, and when the defacto complainant and her husband intervened, the second accused pushed them down and also beat the defacto complainant, apart from calling their caste name, and even committed mischief by destroying the window and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The incident that has led to the registration of the present FIR has its genesis in the circumstances narrated in Crime No.1164 of 2025. After the accused had assaulted the defacto complainant at 03.00 p.m on 10.10.2025, on the next day, they are alleged to have again assaulted the son of the defacto complainant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that, there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants other than Crime No.1165 of 2025, which is connected with the incident in the morning.

7. Appellants and the defacto complainant are alleged to be close friends. According to the defacto complainant the first appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,500/- from him, and when he demanded repayment, they assaulted him. Appellants, on the other hand, alleged that the money was borrowed by the defacto complainant and it was requested to be repaid, raising this false allegation and filed the complaint.

8. Normally, when an offence under the SC/ST Act is alleged, the Court cannot grant anticipatory bail. However, in the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others [2020 (4) SCC 727], the Supreme Court had observed that in cases where the allegations do not prima facie indicate any offence under the SC/ST Act, the Court has power to grant anticipatory bail.

9. In the decision in Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249] , the Supreme Court had observed that when an application for anticipatory bail is being considered by the Court in respect of a crime where the offences under the SC/ST Act are alleged, the Court must identify whether any prima facie case is made out or not. If no such case is made out, the Court is empowered to grant anticipatory bail. On the other hand, if such a prima facie case is made out, the Court should not protect the accused. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that the existence of a prima facie case is to be identified to avoid unnecessary humiliation to the accused, and the Court should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the complaint/FIR in fact discloses the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act or not. It was further observed that the Court must apply its judicial mind, which assumes importance, especially when the said finding has the effect of precluding the accused person from seeking anticipatory bail.

10. Similarly, in the decision in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another [(2020) 10 SCC 710], it was observed that unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such a caste, merely because abuses are hurled at the person who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, the offence under the Act is not made out.

11. Bearing in mind the above principles when the factual scenario in the instant case is appreciated for the purpose of this application, it can be seen that the appellants and the defacto complainant have been friends more then the last four years. One of them had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,500/-. The lender is alleged to have sought return of the amount so borrowed, which initiated a dispute leading to a scuffle resulting in registration of Crime No.1164 of 2025 of Kondotty Police Station. On the next day, the incident leading to the present crime is alleged to have occurred. Prima facie, on a perusal of the nature of allegations, this Court is convinced that an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not made out, as the overt acts were not done in public view.

12. However, as far as Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act is concerned, the appellants are alleged to have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, which is included in the schedule to the SC/ST Act. The defacto complainant has, in the FI Statement, alleged that the accused had fisted him on his chest and head, though, no injuries are seen to have been inflicted. The said assault is allegedly not inflicted on the defacto complainant, merely because he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Hence, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out.

13. Though the offence under Sections 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS are scheduled offences, considering the totality of the circumstances, especially the close friendship between the accused and the defacto complainant’s son, I am of the view that the appellants ought to be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions of limited custody. Taking note of the young age of the appellants and also the nature of offences, I am satisfied that this is a fit case, where appellants are to be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail subject to conditions.

14. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the appellants are granted anticipatory bail subjected to the following conditions:

                  (a) Appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 08.01.2026 from 10.00 am to 05.00 pm, and shall subject themselves to interrogation, which period shall be treated as limited custody for the purpose of completing the investigation.

                  (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the appellants, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

                  (c) Appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also cooperate with the investigation.

                  (d) Appellants shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.

                  (e) Appellant shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

                  In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court. Needless to mention, the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of disposing of this appeal, and the same shall have no bearing at any stage of the proceeding.