As per case facts, a DDC member was accused of assaulting the complainant and others, and using a caste-based slur "Chinal" in public. The complainant, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, ... alleged deliberate humiliation. The trial court denied anticipatory bail, finding a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner appealed, arguing "Chinal" was not a caste-based slur, and it was not listed in the Scheduled Castes Order. The question arose whether anticipatory bail could be granted when the primary evidence like video recordings did not clearly show the caste-based abuse, despite local testimony interpreting "Chinal" as a caste-linked slur. Finally, the court observed that while local witnesses identified "Chinal" as a slur linked to the complainant's Scheduled Caste, the electronic evidence, including videos and press conferences, did not clearly or audibly depict the alleged caste-based abuse. Therefore, the essential ingredients for offenses under the SC/ST Act were not prima facie met, and the statutory bar for anticipatory bail did not apply. The court allowed the anticipatory bail, emphasizing that factual disputes cannot be resolved during bail proceedings.