FIR Registered On Police Statement Cannot Be Questioned For Absence Of Direct Victim Complaint; Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Case Cancelled: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to individuals accused of firing shots and directing caste-based slurs at members of a Scheduled Caste community in Punjab, setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order. The Court found that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out against the accused, and that the validity of an FIR registered on the statement of a police official could not be questioned solely on the ground that no direct complaint was lodged by the victim.
The dispute originated from a civil matter concerning the discharge of sewage into the residences of Scheduled Caste community members in a village in Punjab, which led to a protest. During police-mediated attempts to resolve the matter, members of the upper caste group allegedly unleashed unprovoked violence, fired shots, and directed caste-based slurs at the aggrieved community. The FIR was registered by a police official at the level of Assistant Sub-Inspector, based on a video circulated on social media depicting the incident.
The complainants alleged that their attempts to register an FIR were not acted upon, while the accused contended that the gathering had blocked public roads and marched to their residence, prompting retaliation out of fear.
Evidence before the Court included statements recorded during investigation, an affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police referencing casteist slurs and firearm injuries, and an investigation report disclosing offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court began by acknowledging the general principle governing bail matters, observing that "This Court is slow to interfere in orders granting bail, even anticipatory bail, keeping in mind the various decisions of this Court emphasizing the valuable right to liberty, more so in the case of under trial prisoners in the background of overcrowded jails and prolonged trials." However, it immediately qualified this position by stating that "in a fitting case where the offences are gross and the allegations make out a good case, courts should be cautious in giving anticipatory bail."
On the High Court's primary reasoning for granting anticipatory bail, the Court stated that "we see from the order that the High Court primarily relied on the fact that no complaint on behalf of the alleged victim, the 1st appellant, of a caste related abuse by the accused was made and the FIR was registered on the statement of a police official."
On the materials disregarded by the High Court, the Court recorded that "the learned counsel for the appellants also took us through the short affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police before the High Court and also the report of investigation from the records. There is clear allegation of shots having been fired and casteist slurs levelled which has been ignored by the High Court."
Addressing the High Court's examination of the case records, the Court further stated that "the FIR does not contain an allegation of casteist slurs is very clear but in the facts of the present case, the High Court ought to have been more cautious in examining the records before granting anticipatory bail."
On the question of the video footage placed before both courts, the Court stated that "we are unable to concur with the opinion of the High Court that prima facie there can be no culpability found," while choosing to refrain from elaborating further, noting that the footage would need to be proven appropriately before the trial court.
Distinguishing the precedents relied upon by the High Court, namely Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, the Court observed that "the dictum in Shajan Skaria that, if the ingredients of the offence under the Act of 1989 are not prima facie disclosed then Section 18 of that Act declining consideration of anticipatory bail will not apply, cannot be imported into the facts of this case." It further stated that "neither can it be found that there is absence of a prima facie case; which is otherwise as clearly brought out on investigation, nor can be found any political or private vendetta for raising the allegations."
On the role of police mediation in the matter, the Court stated that "the mere attempt at reconciliation cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts." Clarifying the precise basis of its conclusion, the Court recorded that "it is not the video footage that persuaded us to come to this conclusion, but it has fortified our findings on the other aspects, which we hasten to add are prima facie in nature and would not in any manner govern the trial."
The Court directed: "We, hence, allow the appeals and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the party respondents who shall surrender within a period of 15 days."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Zain Haider, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Santpal Singh Sindhu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj, Adv. Ms. Amisha Dubey, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Verma, AOR
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13439 of 2025) and Criminal Appeal (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13440 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
