Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act allowed only if no prima facie case is established: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) expressly excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), thereby creating an absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail to any person accused of offences under the Act [Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.].

However, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria clarified that this bar operates with a rider that where no prima facie case under Section 3 of the Act is made out and the allegations are devoid of merit, the Court retains the discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

"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. 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," the Court said.

The Court was hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court order granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of assaulting and hurling casteist abuses at a Dalit family during a post-election clash in Maharashtra's Dharashiv district.

The case stemmed from a first information report (FIR) lodged in November 2024, wherein the complainant alleged that accused Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and others attacked him and his family with iron rods, molested his mother, and abused them by their caste name “Mangtyano” after they voted against the accused’s preferred candidate in the assembly elections.

The trial court had declined anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations were specific, supported by witness statements, and disclosed offences under the SC/ST Act.

The High Court, however, granted anticipatory bail, describing the prosecution’s version as “exaggerated” and politically motivated.

Aggrieved by this order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.

The apex court reversed the decision of High Court after noting that the abusive words used were clearly casteist in nature, uttered in public view, and intended to humiliate the complainant because of his caste identity.

"There is no escape from the conclusion that offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out from the bare reading of the FIR....the anticipatory bail granted by overlooking of and disregarding the bar of Section 18 of the Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by the High Court. The order of the High Court could not be sustained in the eye of law,” the Court said.

The Court added that the bar under Section 18 must be understood in light of the SC/ST Act’s purpose, which is to protect the socio-economic interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by safeguarding their civil rights and shielding them from indignity, humiliation and harassment.

"The provisions of Section 18 in its ultimate analysis, furthers the very object of the enactment. Seemingly a stricter provision, it underscores the Constitutional idea of availing social justice and to ensure the same pedestal for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community people with other classes in the society," the Court noted.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Bombay High Court judgment and cancelled the bail granted to the accused. However, it clarified that its observations were purely prima facie and confined to the issue of bail, and directed that the trial proceed on its own merits.

Advocates Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Anant R Devkatte, Damini Vishwakarma, Srishty Pandey and B Dhananjay appeared for the appellant.

Advocates Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Amol Vishwasrao Deshmukh, Ira Mahajan, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande and Shrirang B Varma appeared for respondents.

[Read Judgment]