Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to man booked under SC/ST Act for calling complainant “bastard”

The Supreme Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 55-year-old man accused of assault and caste-based abuse, after finding that the first information report (FIR) did not contain any allegation of a casteist remark [Sidhan @ Sidharathan vs. State of Kerala & Anr.].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria said it was “rather surprising” that the police had invoked the SC/ST Act against the petitioner for using the word "bastard" - which does not amount to a caste-based slur.

It also noted that it was because of the invocation of the SC/ST Act that the Kerala High Court prima facie rejected his anticipatory bail application.

“It is rather surprising to note that though there was no allegation of any caste slur made by the complainant in his complaint, the jurisdictional police seems to have acted in zeal to incorporate the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which prima facie swayed in the mind of the High Court to reject the anticipatory bail,” the Court noted.

The case arose from a complaint lodged on April 16 when the accused allegedly stopped the complainant on the road, threatened him, and attacked him with a chopper.

The FIR stated that the accused called the complainant a “bastard” before inflicting the injuries. The complainant sustained bleeding wounds on his arms while defending himself.

Following registration of FIR, the police added offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that using the word "bastard" amounted to a caste-based slur.

The accused, who had no prior criminal record, sought anticipatory bail before the Kerala High Court, claiming that the addition of the SC/ST Act provisions was unwarranted and unsupported by the complaint itself.

However, the High Court refused to grant him anticipatory bail on the ground that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibited such relief. He then moved the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the original FIR contained no mention of caste-based abuse and that the alleged insult was personal, not caste-related.

He also relied on the wound certificate, which recorded that the complainant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and that his injuries were simple in nature.

The accused further stated that he suffered from heart disease and had fully cooperated with the investigation.

The bench found merit in these submissions and observed that the police had gone beyond the complaint in adding the SC/ST Act provisions.

It further noted that the complaint made at the very first instance by the injured person contained no reference to any caste-related insult.

“The complaint filed at the first instance by the injured would reveal that he not even whispered about any such caste slur made by the petitioner–accused," it said.

Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and set aside the High Court order.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Sriram Parakkat, Anandhu S Nair, Maneesha Sunil Kumar, Bajinder Singh, Sreenath S and Parthasarathy.

The respondents were represented by advocates Nishe Rajen Shonker, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AL and Biju P Raman.

[Read Order]