Supreme Court | Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Bars Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 CrPC Where Prima Facie Offence Is Disclosed
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Three Judge Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, which had granted anticipatory bail to an accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the bar contained in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was operative in the present case. Consequently, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent was cancelled, and the appeal was allowed.
The matter arose from an incident on 25 November 2024 in Kapilapuri village, District Dharashiv, Maharashtra. The complainant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community (Matang), lodged FIR No. 255/2024 at Paranda Police Station alleging caste-based assault, threats, and outrages to modesty.
The complainant stated that on the morning of 25 November 2024, following the assembly elections, a Gram Panchayat peon first confronted him for not voting in line with instructions. Later, around 11:20 a.m., a group of individuals, including the primary accused Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, arrived at the complainant’s residence. The FIR recorded that Rajkumar Jain said, “Mangtyano, you have become much arrogant. You are staying in the village and voting against me”, and struck the complainant with an iron rod.
The FIR further stated that other assailants entered the complainant’s home, assaulted his mother Mohini and aunt Rekha, pulled Mohini’s saree, inflicted injuries, and threatened to burn the family’s house. A gold mangalsutra fell during the scuffle, and household articles were damaged. The complainant’s friend, who attempted to intervene, was also beaten. Witnesses Avinash Masgude, Appa Masgude, and Omkar Mane intervened to rescue the victims.
The FIR invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 118(1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3), and 352. It further invoked Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail application, holding that specific allegations of caste-based abuses were corroborated by a caste certificate confirming the complainant’s community status and by independent eyewitness testimony.
On appeal, however, the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) granted anticipatory bail to Rajkumar Jain. The High Court observed inconsistencies in witness accounts, found the prosecution version exaggerated, and noted the proximity of the incident to the election results. It concluded that the allegations appeared politically motivated and that the accused had been falsely implicated.
The complainant approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision, contending that the High Court had overlooked Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which excludes the application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences under the Act.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court effectively conducted a “mini-trial” and failed to appreciate the statutory bar. Reliance was placed on Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was not an absolute bar, relying on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249). It was contended that the allegations arose out of electoral animosity and were not intended as caste-based abuses.
The State of Maharashtra, through its counter affidavit, opposed anticipatory bail, reiterating the bar under Section 18 and pointing to the prima facie existence of allegations constituting offences under the Act.
The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework of the SC/ST Act and prior precedents. The Bench recorded, “Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973… In other words, in relation to any case involving arrest of a person who is facing the accusation about committing offence under this Act, protection of Section 438 Cr.P.C. would not be available.”
Citing State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) 3 SCC 221, the Court recorded, “The exclusion of Section 438 CrPC in connection with offences under the Act has to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions… perpetrators of such atrocities are likely to threaten and intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail.”
The judgment referred to Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, observing that withdrawal of pre-arrest bail under the SC/ST Act did not infringe Article 21 of the Constitution. In Vilas Pandurang Pawar (2012), it was held, “If there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
The Bench reiterated from Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020) that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right, and denial in such cases cannot be termed unreasonable or violative of Article 14.
While acknowledging Shajan Skaria (2024), the Court distinguished it, noting that in that case, no caste reference existed in the complaint or broadcast material. Here, however, the FIR contained explicit casteist slurs.
The Bench also cited Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 and Ramesh Chandra Vaish v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 668), reaffirming that intentional caste-based insults in public view attract Section 3(1) offences. Referring to Swarn Singh and Karuppudayar v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2015), the Court observed, “If the offence is committed outside the building… and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view.”
Applying these principles, the Court stated, “The use of the word ‘Mangatyano’ was with a clear intention to humiliate the complainant because he belonged to the said Scheduled Caste community… The incident took place outside the house of the complainant, it was a place within public view… In the facts of the case all ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute offences under Section 3 of the Act stood satisfied.”
The Court concluded, “The High Court in proceeding to evaluate the testimony of witnesses and to opine… that there were certain discrepancies, committed a manifest error. The anticipatory bail granted by overlooking and disregarding the bar of Section 18 was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error.”
The Supreme Court categorically set aside the High Court’s order dated 29 April 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2025. It directed: “The judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.201 of 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad is hereby set aside. The Appeal is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1 stands cancelled.”
The Court clarified, “The observations and findings recorded in this judgment are of prima facie nature, limited for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of anticipatory bail. The trial shall proceed independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations herein.”
It further ordered, “In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all the interlocutory applications as may be pending stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Adv. Ms. Srishty Pandey, Adv. Mr. B Dhananjay, Adv. M/S. Juristrust Law Offices, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Case Title: Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1067
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025)
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria
