Does Section 482 BNSS Permit Anticipatory Bail Despite the Bar Under the SC/ST Act?

The Kerala High Court, in Athul P. & Anr. v. State of Kerala (2026), delivered a significant ruling reaffirming the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended in 2018. The judgment reiterates that once prosecution materials prima facie disclose the commission of offences under the SC/ST Act, the embargo under Section 18 of the Act operates with full force, thereby excluding the application of Section 438 of the CrPC [Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)].

Factual Background

The criminal proceedings arose out of Crime No. 1111 of 2025 registered at the Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta district. The alleged incident occurred on 28 September 2025 at about 10:45 PM at a place known as Kochukunnumukku.

According to the prosecution, the accused persons, including the appellants Athul P. and Ajeesh T., formed an unlawful group and attacked the de facto complainant and his companions. It was alleged that:

• Accused No. 1 attempted to strike the de facto complainant on the head using an iron rod while issuing threats of death.
• Accused No. 2 stamped on the right thigh of the de facto complainant while hurling obscene words.
• Other accused persons, including the appellants (initially arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 8 and later referred to as accused Nos. 5 and 6), assaulted the companions of the de facto complainant.
• The accused persons also destroyed the autorickshaw owned by the de facto complainant.

The prosecution further alleged that caste-based insults were hurled at the de facto complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, thereby attracting the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Offences Alleged

The prosecution alleged that the accused committed offences 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, in addition to offences under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended in 2018.

Procedural History

The appellants approached the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases at Pathanamthitta by filing Crl.M.P. No. 9150 of 2025, seeking anticipatory bail. By order dated 26 November 2025, the Special Court dismissed the application, holding that:

• Prima facie materials disclosed the commission of offences under the SC/ST Act.
• Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred the grant of anticipatory bail.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the present criminal appeal before the High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, which provides a statutory right of appeal against orders passed by Special Courts.

Analysis and Reasoning of the Court

Justice A. Badharudeen undertook a careful examination of the prosecution records, including the FIS and the wound certificate.

A. Prima Facie Disclosure of Offences

The Court observed that the FIS specifically named the accused persons, including the appellants, and attributed overt acts to them. The de facto complainant was acquainted with the accused, and therefore, the naming of the assailants was not vague or speculative.

The nature of injuries, particularly the head injury and the advice for CT scan, indicated the gravity of the assault and supported the allegation of offences under Section 110 of the BNS, which is non-bailable.

B. Knowledge of Caste Identity

The Court held that where the accused and the victim are known to each other, knowledge of the caste identity of the victim can be inferred from the circumstances.

Relying on Section 8 of the SC/ST Act, the Court observed that direct proof of knowledge is not always necessary at the anticipatory bail stage; circumstantial inference is sufficient when supported by facts.

C. Bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that:

• Section 18 of the SC/ST Act excludes the application of Section 438 CrPC. Under the new criminal law regime, Section 482 BNSS, which corresponds to anticipatory bail, is similarly inapplicable to offences under the SC/ST Act.

The Court clarified that the bar is not absolute in all cases. If prosecution materials fail to disclose the ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act, courts may grant anticipatory bail. However, where prima facie materials exist, the bar operates fully.

D. Impact on Investigation

The Court accepted the prosecution’s submission that a grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would impede effective investigation, particularly in relation to custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons.

Conclusion

The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has not altered the settled legal position governing anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Section 482 BNSS does not permit anticipatory bail where Section 18 of the SC/ST Act operates, provided the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie offence. The Kerala High Court’s 2026 judgment reaffirms this doctrinal clarity, ensuring that procedural reform does not dilute substantive social justice legislation.

Ultimately, Indian courts continue to walk a careful constitutional tightrope, protecting individual liberty while upholding the collective commitment to dignity, equality, and protection of vulnerable communities. Section 482 BNSS cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams