JUDGMENT : A. Badharudeen, J. This appeal has been filed at the instance of the sole accused in Crime No. 81 of 2026, Nagaroor Police Station, challenging the order dated 02.03.2026 in Crl.M.C.No.7/2026, whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant/accused was dismissed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PoA) Act', for short), Nedumangad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the defacto complainant appeared in person and the learned counsel appearing for her and perused the order impugned. 3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the appellant/accused. 4. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant (a member of the Scheduled Caste community), and the appellant (who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community) got acquainted with each other one year ago and have maintained love affair for the past six months. The appellant is a neighbour of the defacto complainant. It is alleged further that the appellant made a promise to marry the defacto complainant, and in pursuance of the same, at about 11.30 p.m., on 03.02.2026, the appellant took the defacto complainant to his house, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse with assurance that he would marry her. Thereafter on 04.02.2026, in the early morning, while they were sitting at the Railway Station, Kazhakuttom, they were taken to the police station, where the appellant agreed to stay with the defacto complainant at her house. Pursuant to the undertaking, the appellant and the defacto complainant went to the defacto complainant's house. It is alleged further that at 1.30 p.m., on 05.02.2026, defacto complainant was again subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant at her house repeating promise of marriage and the appellant left the defacto complainant's house, at 6.30 p.m., on the same day, under the pretext of taking his Aadhaar card for the purpose of registering their marriage. It is alleged that thereafter, he neither returned back nor attended her calls. Thus, the appellant retracted from his promise to marry the defacto complainant. 5. It is alleged that thereafter, he neither returned back nor attended her calls. Thus, the appellant retracted from his promise to marry the defacto complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution records would reveal that the defacto complainant and the appellant have been in love relationship and even the appellant was ready to marry the defacto complainant, he could not solemnize the marriage, due to the objection raised by his parents. It is pointed out that since the relationship is consensual, none of the alleged offences would get attracted, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and the finding of the Special Court that prima facie offences alleged were made out warrants interference, by allowing this appeal. 6. The defacto complainant appeared in person and narrated the incident in detail as stated in the First Information Statement. According to her, the appellant maintained love relationship with her on the promise of marriage and thereafter, at 11.30 p.m., on 03.02.2026, she was taken to the appellant's house and subjected to sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage. It was done again at 1.30 p.m., on 05.02.2026, at the residence of the defacto complainant and thereafter, the appellant left the house of the defacto complainant on the pretext of taking his Aadhaar card for the registration of marriage, making her to believe that the marriage would be registered. Thereafter, the appellant could not be contacted and he deviated from the promise of marriage. This version of the defacto complainant is reiterated by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, while opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 7. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor is that in the instant case the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(PoA) Act would apply and therefore, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted. 8. On a perusal of the prosecution records, it could be seen that the defacto complainant and the appellant had been in a love relationship and thereafter, they had sexual intercourse on 03.02.2026, at the residence of the appellant; and thereafter, on 05.02.2026, at the residence of the defacto complainant, on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the appellant deviated from the promise of marriage and even failed to contact the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the appellant deviated from the promise of marriage and even failed to contact the defacto complainant. In this matter, both parties are unmarried and are fit to solemnise their marriage. Therefore, the promise of marriage and the act of subjecting the defacto complainant for sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage would prima facie constitute the offences alleged to be committed by the appellant. Thus, in this case, the prosecution allegations are made out prima facie, where the bar under of the SC/ST(PoA) Act straight away would attract and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant cannot be considered. 9. Thus it is found that the learned Special Judge is right in negating the plea of anticipatory bail and the order under challenge is liable to be confirmed. In the result, this criminal appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be a direction to the appellant/accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer or in the event of failure to surrender, the Investigating Officer is free to arrest the appellant/accused and proceed under law, as part of the investigation to accomplish eventful investigation and successful prosecution.