The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court that granted pre-arrest bail to an individual accused of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act is absolute if the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) prima facie constitute an offence.
The Court ruled that the High Court committed a “manifest error” and a “clear illegality and jurisdictional error” by conducting a mini-trial and overlooking the statutory bar.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged on November 26, 2024, by the appellant, Kiran, against Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and several others. The appellant, a member of the ‘Matang’ Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the accused, who belong to the ‘Jain’ community, attacked him and his family over their voting choices in the assembly elections held a day prior.
According to the FIR, on November 25, 2024, Rajkumar Jain and others came to the appellant’s house. The FIR quotes Jain as saying, “Mangtyano, you have become much arrogant, you are staying in the village and voting against me.” Following this, Jain allegedly struck the appellant with an iron rod. The FIR further states that other accused entered the appellant’s house, pushed his mother and aunt, pulled his mother’s saree, and beat them with an iron rod and fists, threatening, “Mangtyano, you have become arrogant, we will not let you stay in the village, we will burn your houses.” The accused were allegedly carrying petrol bottles.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, rejected the accused’s application for anticipatory bail, finding that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was made out. However, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, allowed the appeal and granted pre-arrest bail, opining that the “entire prosecution case appeared to be exaggerated and false” and had “political overtures.” This High Court order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant argued that the High Court had misdirected itself by overlooking the express bar on anticipatory bail contained in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. It was contended that since the FIR clearly alleged caste-based abuse and intimidation in public view, a prima facie offence was made out, precluding the grant of pre-arrest bail. The appellant cited Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra to argue that the court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage.
The respondent-accused contended that the bar under Section 18 was not absolute and the court could examine whether a prima facie case existed, relying on the decision in Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. It was argued that the allegations were wrongly given a “castiest colour” and stemmed from anger over election results.
Court’s Analysis and Interpretation of Law
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which explicitly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (anticipatory bail) for offences under the Act.
The bench summarized the settled legal position, stating, “…as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act.”
The Court acknowledged a narrow exception, noting that where the accusations are devoid of prima facie merits on the face of the FIR, the court has room to exercise its discretion. However, it clarified that this conclusion must be arrived at “in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR.” The Court emphasized that it is “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.”
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found:
- The appellant belonged to a Scheduled Caste, and the accused did not.
- The casteist slur “Mangatyano” was used with a “clear intention to humiliate the complainant because he belonged to the said Scheduled Caste community.”
- The incident occurred outside the appellant’s house, which qualifies as a “place within public view” as interpreted in Swarn Singh.
- The motive for the attack was linked to the appellant not voting as desired by the accused, directly implicating Section 3(1)(o) of the Act.
The Court concluded that all necessary ingredients to prima facie constitute offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act were satisfied from a bare reading of the FIR.
Decision
Finding the High Court’s reasoning to be flawed, the Supreme Court stated, “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. 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.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1, Rajkumar Jivraj Jain. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and limited to the question of bail, and the trial should proceed uninfluenced by them.
