Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act Permissible Only in Absence of Prima Facie Offence – Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. (2025)

The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Interpreting Section 18 of the Act, the Court held that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is ordinarily barred once the FIR discloses a prima facie case. However, a narrow exception exists—if on the very face of the FIR it is apparent that no offence under the Act is made out and the allegations are devoid of substance, the Court may still exercise discretion to grant bail.

The case arose from allegations that the accused abused the complainant by using casteist slurs, assaulted him with an iron rod, threatened to set his house on fire, and similarly humiliated his mother and aunt. The abuse was linked to the complainant’s voting decision in an assembly election, thereby establishing a caste nexus. While the Sessions Court rejected anticipatory bail, the Bombay High Court granted relief, terming the accusations exaggerated and politically motivated.

Overturning the High Court’s order, a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, ruled that once the FIR itself satisfies the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, the statutory bar in Section 18 applies in full force. The Court cautioned that while deciding whether a prima facie case is made out, judges cannot embark on a “mini-trial” or examine evidentiary materials beyond the FIR. In the present case, the allegations clearly disclosed caste-based humiliation and violence, and therefore anticipatory bail was impermissible. The order of the High Court was set aside, with the Court emphasizing that its observations were confined only to the bail stage and would not prejudice the ongoing trial.

References:

Leave a Reply