SUPREME COURT RULES: NO ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN SC/ST ATROCITY OFFENCES IF PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTS

Introduction

In a significant Judgment delivered on September 1, 2025, a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025) reinforced the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Factual Background

The incident that sparked this legal battle occurred on November 25, 2024, in Kapilapuri village, District Dharashiv, Maharashtra, just a day after the assembly elections. The Appellant (Kiran) belonging to the Matang community (a Scheduled Caste), lodged FIR against Respondent No. 1 (Rajkumar Jivraj Jain) and eleven others from the Jain community. According to the FIR, the trouble began when a Gram Panchayat peon confronted Appellant at 11:00 AM for not voting as instructed in the previous day’s elections. Twenty minutes later, a group led by Rajkumar Jain arrived at Appellant’s residence and started attacking him with an iron rod.

The violence escalated as the accused entered Kiran’s house, assaulted his mother Mohini and aunt Rekha, pulled his Mother’s saree in an act of molestation, and threatened to burn their house while holding petrol bottles. The incident occurred in public view outside Kiran’s house and was witnessed by villagers including people who eventually rescued the victims.

The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and crucially, Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, establishing a prima facie case of caste-based atrocities motivated by electoral resentment.

Contentions of the Parties

• Appellant’s Arguments:

Appellant’s Counsel contended that the High Court fundamentally erred by overlooking Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which creates an absolute bar on anticipatory bail. He argued that the use of the casteist slur “Mangtyano” and the public nature of the humiliation clearly established offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Counsel relied on Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727 to emphasize that courts should not conduct a “mini trial” while considering bail applications.

• Respondent’s Defense:

The Accused’s Counsel argued that Section 18 did not create an absolute bar and relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 to contend that courts must examine whether prima facie substance exists in allegations. They maintained that the incident arose from electoral animosity rather than caste-based hatred, arguing that giving it a “casteist colour” was inappropriate.

• State’s Position:

The State of Maharashtra opposed anticipatory bail, emphasizing the operational scope of Section 18 and highlighting that prima facie material existed in the FIR to establish SC/ST Act violations.

Decision and Analysis

The Supreme Court unequivocally set aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail and cancelled the bail granted to Rajkumar Jain. Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the bench, established several crucial legal principles:

Statutory Interpretation: The Court clarified that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 CrPC, creating an absolute bar on anticipatory bail for offences under the Act. However, this bar operates with a rider – where no prima facie offence is established and allegations lack merit, courts retain discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

Prima Facie Test: The Court emphasized that the use of “Mangtyano” was clearly intended to humiliate Kiran because of his Scheduled Caste identity. Since the incident occurred outside Kiran’s house in public view, all ingredients of offences under Section 3(1)(r) (intentional insult in public view), 3(1)(s) (caste-based abuse), and other provisions were prima facie satisfied.

High Court’s Error: The Supreme Court severely criticized the High Court for conducting an impermissible “mini trial” by evaluating witness testimonies and finding discrepancies. The Court held this approach was a “manifest error” and “clear illegality and jurisdictional error”.

Constitutional Context: The Judgment reinforced that the SC/ST Act’s protective provisions must be viewed in the context of prevailing social conditions and the need to prevent perpetrators from intimidating victims. The Court emphasized that these provisions push constitutional ideals of social justice forward and ensure equal treatment for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities.

Conclusion

The Judgment represents a watershed moment in strengthening legal protections for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. By firmly rejecting the High Court’s approach of conducting evidentiary analysis at the bail stage and reaffirming the statutory bar under Section 18, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that caste-based atrocities will not be treated lightly by the judicial system.

The case demonstrates how electoral politics can become a vehicle for caste-based violence and establishes that such incidents cannot be dismissed as mere political disputes when they involve casteist slurs and public humiliation. The Court’s clarification that the absolute bar operates with limited exceptions only where no prima facie case exists provides much-needed clarity to lower courts while maintaining robust protection for vulnerable communities.

This judgment will serve as a crucial precedent for future cases involving anticipatory bail applications under the SC/ST Act, ensuring that the legislative intent of protecting marginalized communities is not undermined by judicial overreach in the guise of examining evidence.

 

YASH HARI DIXIT

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Videos, titled “Legal Aspects of Exports in India | Export Laws Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the Link below:

https://youtu.be/2PWPKz1yr-E?si=CIjgPRvGITe5n5Il