Section 18 SC-ST Act Creates Absolute Bar Against Grant Of Anticipatory Bail To Person Facing Specific Accusations: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in relation to a person facing specific accusations of committing offence under the SC/ST Act.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench which allowed pre-arrest bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed, “In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of 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 Bench said that in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.

Advocate Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi represented the Appellant while AOR Dilip Annasaheb Taur represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

An FIR was registered by the Appellant-Complainant against the Respondent-accused in respect of alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 118 (1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and under Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act. It was alleged that the accused along with others went to the Appellant’s house and in front of the same, stated “Mangtyano, you have become much arrogant, you are staying in the village and voting against me.” Allegedly, the Appellant was attacked with an iron rod and his mother and aunt were addressed with the same set of words and were beaten with the iron rod.

They were allegedly punched, inflicting internal injuries and the Mangalsutra of the mother fell somewhere in the scuffle. The accused had in their hands petrol bottles and were repeatedly shouting and threatening that they would burn the house of the Appellant. Hence, the injured Appellant lodged an FIR from the hospital. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the accused for anticipatory bail. When this Order was challenged before the High Court by the accused, it held that the accused was falsely implicated and hence, granted anticipatory bail to him. Assailing this, the Complainant was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “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 that non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR.

“The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard”, it added.

The Court observed that the use of the word ‘Mangatyano’ was with a clear intention to humiliate the Complainant because he belonged to the said Scheduled Caste community.

“In the said abusive utterances and conduct by the accused, the caste nexus was established. The complainant was humiliated with casteist and abusive approach for the reason that he did not vote in favour of particular candidate one Bahubali-accused No.8 in the Assembly Election as desired by the respondent accused”, it further noted.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the incident took place outside the Complainant’s house and hence, it was a place within public view.

“In the present case, as noted above, the incident took place outside the house of the appellant which could be viewed by anybody. It was indeed a place within public view. There is no gainsaying that in the facts of the case all ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute offences under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 as alleged in the FIR stood satisfied. Furthermore, the occurrence of incident was fortified by recovery of clothes and weapons”, it also remarked.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the anticipatory bail granted by overlooking of and disregarding the bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by the High Court.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Judgment, and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused.

Cause Title- Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1067)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advocates Anant R. Devkatte, Damini Vishwakarma, Srishty Pandey, and B Dhananjay.

Respondents: AORs Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Amol Vishwasrao Deshmukh, Ira Mahajan, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Shrirang B. Varma.

Click here to read/download the Judgment