Supreme Court: “Bar on Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act is Absolute if FIR Shows Prima Facie Offence”

The Supreme Court rules that under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted if the FIR prima facie discloses an offence, reaffirming the absolute bar under Section 18.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the absolute bar on anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), setting aside a Bombay High Court order granting pre-arrest bail in a high-profile caste-based violence case.

A bench consisting of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that Section 18 of the Act imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail when the allegations in the FIR prima facie establish the commission of an offence.

ALSO READ: Lucknow Lawyer Gets Life Imprisonment For Misusing SC/ST Act With Fake Rape Cases: Court Calls It A Big Conspiracy

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from an FIR lodged on November 26, 2024, by Kiran, a member of the ‘Matang’ Scheduled Caste community, against Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and several others of the Jain community. According to the complaint, on November 25, 2024, the accused allegedly attacked Kiran and his family over their voting choices in the assembly elections.

The FIR detailed the following:

• The accused reportedly said,

“Mangtyano, you have become very arrogant, you are staying in the village and voting against me.”

• Kiran was allegedly struck with an iron rod.
• The other accused entered the appellant’s home, pushed his mother and aunt, pulled his mother’s saree, and physically assaulted them with iron rods and fists.
• The accused also allegedly threatened to burn their houses while carrying petrol bottles.

The Additional Sessions Judge in Paranda rejected the anticipatory bail plea, noting a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. However, the Bombay High Court overturned this decision, granting pre-arrest bail on the ground that the case appeared exaggerated and politically motivated.

ALSO READ: BREAKING | Stray Dog Catching Drive: Supreme Court Rejects Urgent Plea Against MCD, Says ‘No Virtue Signalling’ in Public Safety

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant’s Argument:

The appellant contended that the High Court ignored the express bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Since the FIR clearly established caste-based abuse and intimidation in public view, pre-arrest bail should not have been granted. The appellant cited the Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra judgment, emphasizing that courts are not expected to conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage.

Respondent’s Argument:

The accused argued that Section 18’s bar was not absolute. They relied on Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala & Anr, claiming that the allegations were politically motivated, not caste-based, and the court could evaluate the prima facie case before granting bail.

ALSO READ: Delhi CM Attack Case: Rajesh Sakariya Sent to 5-Day Custody By Court; Rekha Gupta Says “Attack Was on Our Resolve to Serve Delhi”

Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court conducted a detailed review of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which explicitly bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under the Act.

Key observations:

• The bar on anticipatory bail is absolute if the FIR prima facie establishes an offence.
• Only in cases where the FIR is devoid of prima facie merit can a court consider anticipatory bail. Even then, the examination must be limited to the first reading of the FIR, without conducting a mini-trial or assessing other evidence.
• Caste-based slurs and attacks in public view are sufficient to satisfy the prima facie ingredients of an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.

Applying these principles to the present case:

1. Kiran, the complainant, was a Scheduled Caste member, while the accused were not.
2. The slur “Mangtyano” showed a clear intent to humiliate based on caste.
3. The attack took place outside the complainant’s house, considered public view under legal interpretation.
4. The motive was linked to Kiran’s voting choice, implicating Section 3(1)(o) of the Act.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant: “High Court Judges Must Ask Themselves Every Night – Have I Repaid the System?”

Decision:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error by conducting a mini-trial and overlooking Section 18. The anticipatory bail granted was therefore a clear illegality and jurisdictional error.

Case Title:
Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr
@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8169 OF 2025

Read Judgment:

Click Here to Read Our Reports on SC/ST Act

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES