The court, citing Ram Krishna Balothia vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1995), said that such crimes belong to a special category, which are related to untouchability, so the criminal cannot be given a chance to threaten the victims by granting bail.
New Delhi- In a recent important decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the order of the Bombay High Court, taking a tough stand on granting anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). This decision is very important because it limits the facility of anticipatory bail in cases of casteist oppression against Dalit and tribal communities, thereby strengthening the process of getting justice to the victims and preventing the criminals from threatening or influencing the witnesses.
The court clarified that there is a complete ban on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, except in cases where the crime is not proved prima facie. This judgment is a strong step towards social justice, which strengthens the principle of abolition of untouchability under Article 17 of the Constitution.
The case pertains to the Paranda police station of Dharashiv district of Maharashtra, where the appellant Kiran, who belongs to the Matang (Mang) Scheduled Caste community, lodged an FIR on November 26, 2024 against the accused Rajkumar Jivraaj Jain and others. The FIR registered offences under Sections 118(1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3) and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (BNS) along with Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
The incident took place on 25 November 2024 at 11 am, a day after the assembly elections, when the accused and their associates reached the appellant’s house and attacked him using casteist slurs. According to the FIR, accused Rajkumar Jain hit the appellant on the head and back with an iron rod, saying “Mangtyan, you have become very arrogant”, causing the appellant to fall down. The accused also hurled casteist slurs at the appellant’s mother Mohini and aunt Rekha, pulled their sarees, assaulted them and threatened to burn down the house. During this, the mother’s one tola gold mangalsutra fell off and household articles were damaged.
The appellant’s friend Yashwant Bodre was also beaten up for being from the Ramoshi community and voting against the government. The accused had a petrol bottle in their hand and were threatening to burn down the house. Some people from the village came to intervene, following which the appellant was sent to the hospital and an FIR was registered from there.
The judgment is significant as it limits the facility of anticipatory bail in cases of casteist atrocities against Dalit and tribal communities, thereby strengthening the process of access to justice for victims and preventing perpetrators from threatening or influencing witnesses.
The incident occurred due to the appellant not voting for the accused’s preferred candidate in the assembly election, which is an offence under Section 3(1)(o) of the SC/ST Act, as it deals with punishing a Scheduled Caste member for voting or not voting.
The appellant alleged casteist insult, insult in a public place (Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)), and touching of sexual nature against women (Section 3(1)(w)(i)). The accused belong to the Jain community, which is not a Scheduled Caste/Tribe, hence the SC/ST Act applies. Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the accused as prima facie offence was proved, caste certificate confirmed the Scheduled Caste of the appellant and statements of witnesses were available. But the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court on 29th April 2025 granted anticipatory bail to the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 201/2025, stating that the case appears to be exaggerated, there are inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and the incident is motivated by electoral politics. The High Court granted bail terming the nature of injuries as minor.
The special leave petition of the appellant was heard in the Supreme Court, where Justice N.V. Anjaria along with Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment. The court set aside the High Court order and said that there is a complete bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which prevents the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Citing earlier judgments such as Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra (2012), Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India (2020) and Shajan Skaria v State of Kerala (2024), the court clarified that the court has to examine the prima facie offence only on the contents of the FIR and not conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence or a mini trial.
Here, it is clear from the FIR that the accused insulted the appellant by using the casteist word “mangtyans”, which happened in public view and was caste-related. The court said that in such cases, the bar can be lifted only as an exception when the offence is not made out prima facie, but here all the elements are present. The State of Maharashtra also opposed the bail of the accused.
The judgment strengthens the objective of the SC/ST Act, which is to make the Scheduled Castes and Tribes socio-economically strong and protect them from humiliation. Citing Ram Krishna Balothia vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1995), the court said that such crimes belong to a special category, which are related to untouchability, so the offender cannot be given an opportunity to intimidate the victims by granting bail.
Referring to the interpretation of “public view” in cases like Swarn Singh (2008), Hitesh Verma (2020) and Karuppudayar (2025), the court said that the incident outside the appellant’s house falls in public view. The judgment clarified that these comments are prima facie and will not affect the trial. The decision has been welcomed by Dalit rights activists, as it will speed up justice in cases of oppression and avoid political pressure.
BANAE National President Dr Nagsen Sonare said, “Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under Section 438 of CrPC as it is prohibited by Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989. Wide publicity of this order is necessary as courts across India are granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC and this gives moral encouragement to the accused to commit atrocities against the SC-ST community again. This order of the Supreme Court should be shared and discussed by all our organizations and associations.”
NACDAOR Chairman Ashok Bharti welcomed this decision of the Supreme Court. He said that NACDAOR suggests that the Supreme Court should hold a meeting of judges and judicial officers on this issue, in which different courts should avoid giving different interpretations.
Geetha Sunil Pillai
Courtesy : Hindi News