Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court said that there is a bar on anticipatory bail for an accused under the SC/ST Act but if the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the court has a room to exercise its discretion to grant pre-arrest bail.
Setting aside anticipatory bail to an accused, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said, 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.
In such cases, the bench, also comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, clarified 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.
"The provision of Section 18 and the bar created thereunder has to be seen in the context of the object and purpose with which the Parliament enacted the SC/SC Act, 1989," the bench said.
The court pointed out that this legislation was brought into force with an avowed object of implementing the measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who have remained a vulnerable class in the society.
"The underlying idea is to ensure that the persons belonging to these classes are not denied their civil rights, are not subjected to indignities and are insulated from humiliation and harassment,'' the bench said.
The court felt Section 18 in its ultimate analysis furthers the very object of the enactment.
"Seemingly a stricter provision, it underscores the constitutional idea of availing social justice and to ensure the same pedestal for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community people with other classes in the society,'' the bench said.
The court allowed an appeal by Kiran against the Bombay High Court's order of April 29, 2025, which granted pre-arrest bail to Rajkumar Jivraj Jain.
The respondent accused and others were alleged to have assaulted the appellant-complainant and her family members and hurled casteist abuses for not voting a particular candidate in Maharashtra Assembly elections.
Going by the contents of the FIR, the court said, there is no escape from the conclusion that offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out.
The high court in proceeding to evaluate the testimony of witnesses and to opine on that basis that there were certain discrepancies, no offence was made out, committed a manifest error, it held.
"The anticipatory bail granted by overlooking of and disregarding the bar of Section 18 of the Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by the high court. The order of the high court could not be sustained in the eye of law,'' the court said.
In the 23-page judgment on September 1, 2025, Justice Anjaria, on behalf of the bench, pointed out that Section 18 of 1989 Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC.
In relation to any case involving arrest of a person, facing the accusation about committing offence under this Act, protection of Section 438, CrPC would not be available, the court said.
"The Legislature has taken away the benefit of anticipatory bail in respect of the arrest for the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act. The bar in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would operate," the bench said.