Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Atrocities Case.
01-September-2025
Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law
The Supreme Court has suspended an order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a case pertaining to allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the High Court made a serious mistake by disregarding the statutory bar against grant of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act.
Background of the Case:
The case was initiated from FIR No. 255/2024, which was registered at Paranda Police Station, District Dharashiv on 26 November 2024. The complainant, being a member of the Matang (Scheduled Caste) community, had accused that he along with his family was attacked, abused using caste derogatory terms, and threatened by a group of villagers following assembly election results.
As per the FIR, the accused, including respondent No.1, attacked the complainant outside his residence, abused him by mentioning his caste name, assaulted him with iron rods, and also physically assaulted his mother and aunt. The accused threatened to burn their home and destroy their belongings. The complainant's caste certificate established that he was of the Scheduled Caste.
Sessions Court vs. High Court:
The Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, had declined anticipatory bail, observing:
- specific caste-based abuses were evidently listed in the FIR,
- independent witnesses confirmed the narration, and
- injuries were established.
Yet the Bombay High Court reversed this order on 29 April 2025. It found the prosecution's case to be inflated, linked the occurrence with election results, and held that the accused was falsely accused. On these grounds, the High Court extended pre-arrest bail.
Supreme Court's Analysis:
In appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's methodology was defective. The salient points were:
- Bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act: The law explicitly takes away the shield of anticipatory bail for offenses under the Act, except where the FIR itself does not disclose a prima facie case.
- The charges in the FIR expressed categorically caste-based abuses in public sight, physical assault, arson threats, and molestation, all of which fall under Section 3 of the Act.
- The abusive language and behavior were directly linked to the complainant's caste and his vote choice, bringing the case firmly within Section 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the Act.
- The occurrence happened outside the residence, thus constituting a "place within public view," as elucidated in earlier judgments.
- The High Court made an improper evaluation of the credibility of witnesses during the bail process, constituting a "mini trial", which is not permissible at this level.
The Supreme Court based its decision on precedents such as State of M.P. vs. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2012), and Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (2020), which reiterate that anticipatory bail is disallowed where prima facie offences under the SC/ST Act are revealed.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that prima facie an offence under the SC/ST Act was established. Accordingly:
- The High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was set aside.
- Respondent No.1’s anticipatory bail was cancelled.
- The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding bail and would not prejudice the trial, which must proceed independently.
Conclusion:
Through this directive, the Supreme Court reinstated the rigid interpretation of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, highlighting that anticipatory bail is not possible when there are clear charges of caste atrocities. The decision highlights the protective nature of the Act to protect vulnerable groups from humiliation, intimidation, and violence.