Summary
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(o), (r), (s) and (w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after evaluating witness statements and finding the prosecution case exaggerated. The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in absolute terms wherever a prima facie offence under the Act appears from the FIR itself; the court may grant pre-arrest bail only where, on a first reading of the FIR, no such offence is made out, and may not enter the evidentiary realm or conduct a mini trial. Since the FIR disclosed casteist abuse and assault in public view, the bail order was set aside.
Issues
- Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 barred the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the respondent-accused.
- In what circumstances a court may grant pre-arrest bail despite Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, and whether it may evaluate witness statements and evidence in doing so.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie made out offences under Section 3(1)(o), (r), (s) and (w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, including whether the place of occurrence was a place within public view.
Provisions considered
- Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Section 18 provides that nothing in Section 438 CrPC applies to any case involving the arrest of a person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act. The Court held that this expressly takes away the benefit of anticipatory bail for such offences and creates an absolute bar, subject only to the rider that where on the face of the FIR no offence under Section 3 is made out, the court retains discretion to grant pre-arrest bail. The High Court's grant of anticipatory bail in disregard of the bar was held a clear illegality and jurisdictional error. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 9)
- Section 18A, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The Court noted that Section 18A(1) dispenses with any preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR and with approval for arrest of a person accused under the Act, and that Section 18A(2) makes Section 438 CrPC inapplicable to a case under the Act notwithstanding any judgment, order or direction of any court. (¶ 5.1.1)
- Section 3(1)(o), (r), (s) and (w)(i), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989These clauses punish a non-SC/ST person who commits an offence under the Act against an SC/ST member for having voted or not voted for a candidate, intentionally insults or intimidates such a member with intent to humiliate in any place within public view, abuses such a member by caste name in public view, or touches an SC/ST woman sexually without consent. The FIR, alleging abuse by caste name and assault with an iron rod outside the complainant's house because he voted against the accused's candidate, was held prima facie to satisfy the ingredients; a place outside the house visible to anybody is within public view. (¶¶ 5, 5.9, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 8, 9)
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 438 permits a person apprehending arrest on an accusation of a non-bailable offence to seek a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest. The Court held that this protection is unavailable where the accusation is of an offence under the SC/ST Act, by force of Section 18 of that Act, save where no prima facie offence appears from the FIR. (¶¶ 2, 5.2, 6, 6.1)
Held
- Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 CrPC, so that the protection of anticipatory bail is not available in relation to the arrest of a person facing an accusation of an offence under the Act. The legislature has taken away the benefit of anticipatory bail for such offences, and the bar has been upheld as not violative of Articles 14 and 21; it must be understood in the light of the object of the Act to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from indignity, humiliation and harassment. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.6.1, 5.7, 5.7.1, 6)
- The absolute bar in Section 18 is applied with a rider: where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 is not made out and the accusations are devoid of prima facie merit, the court has room to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Whether a prima facie case exists is to be judged at first blush from the averments in the FIR, whose contents are decisive; the court may not travel into the evidentiary realm, consider other materials or conduct a mini trial. A court has a duty to verify the averments in the complaint to see whether an offence under Section 3(1) is prima facie made out, and if there is a specific averment of insult or intimidation by calling the complainant by caste name, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. (¶¶ 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2)
- Insult or intimidation under Section 3(1) must be intentionally targeted at a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe because of that membership, and for Section 3(1)(r) it must occur at a place within public view. A place within public view is distinct from a public place: an area outside a building, such as a lawn visible from the road, qualifies. The space outside the complainant's house where the incident occurred, which anybody could view, was a place within public view. (¶¶ 5.9, 7.2, 8)
- On the FIR's allegations that the non-SC/ST accused addressed the Scheduled Caste complainant and his family with a caste-based slur, beat them with an iron rod and threatened to burn their house, outside the house, because the complainant had not voted for the accused's preferred candidate, the caste nexus was established and all ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act were prima facie satisfied. The High Court committed a manifest error by evaluating the testimony of witnesses and finding discrepancies; its grant of anticipatory bail in disregard of the Section 18 bar was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 8, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 set aside and the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1 cancelled; the observations are prima facie and confined to the question of anticipatory bail, and the trial is to proceed on its own merits uninfluenced by them; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.