Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla refused anticipatory bail to a woman accused of confining and assaulting a minor boy from a scheduled caste after he allegedly touched her house. The accused was also alleged to have demanded a sacrificial goat to “purify” her residence. Observing that the act was rooted in caste-based discrimination, the Court held that the allegations disclosed a prima facie offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Kainthla noted that the offence appeared motivated by the victim’s caste, thereby attracting the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner, sought pre-arrest bail after being accused of offences under Sections 107, 127(2), and 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, the police added Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, citing caste-based motivation in the alleged act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Four in 1990 Murder Case, Citing Prosecution’s Suppression of Origin and Genesis of Offence

The State argued that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is expressly excluded by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, thereby rendering the petition non-maintainable. The prosecution stated that the alleged act stemmed from caste discrimination, as the accused purportedly confined the child to a cowshed and assaulted him because he had touched her house. The police report noted that the accused, aged 50, demanded a goat for the purification of her house, which she claimed had been defiled. This version was corroborated by the statements of witnesses. The accused also admitted during a media interview on October 1, 2025, that she had confined the boy until a goat was offered. The investigation further cited statements stating prevailing caste prejudices in the area.

The petitioner argued that the Court retained jurisdiction to consider pre-arrest bail where no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. She relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727.

The judge stated that “the accused had confined the deceased in the cowshed and given him beatings because he had touched her house,” and further observed that she “asked for a sacrificial goat to purify her house.” Referring to Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act, the Court stated that there is a presumption that the accused was aware of the caste of the deceased.

Justice Kainthla observed that “beating and threatening a person are prima facie punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC, which have been mentioned in Section 3(2)(va).” The Court found that since the alleged acts were committed because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the offence fell squarely within the ambit of the Act.

Citing Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, the Court held that “Section 438 CrPC shall not apply to cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply.” The Court further referred to the decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795, which stated that “a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out.”

The Court held that upon reading the FIR and the status report, it could not conclude that no prima facie case was made out under the Act.

Justice Kainthla stated that “a prima facie reading of the status report and FIR shows that the accused had given beatings to the deceased (a member of the Scheduled Caste) and confined him to the cowshed because the deceased happened to touch the house of the accused, and she wanted a sacrificial goat for purification.” The Court added that the offence appeared to have been committed “because of the caste of the deceased and would not have been committed had the deceased not been a member of the Scheduled Caste.”

Also Read: Right to Worship at Temple Protected Under Articles 25 and 26; State to Balance Faith and Public Order

“It was not possible to conclude, at this stage, that the petitioner has not, prima facie, committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act.” Accordingly, the Court upheld the State’s objection regarding the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, declaring that “the present petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 18 of the SC & ST Act.”

“The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.” The Court also noted that any pending miscellaneous petitions stood disposed of as a consequence of this decision.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms Suman Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State: Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For the Complainant: Mr Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr R.R. Rahi, Advocate.

Case Title: Pushpa Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:34576
Case Number: Cr.M.P.(M) No.2385 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla