The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was enacted to prevent atrocities against historically marginalised communities. Recognising the vulnerability of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to social discrimination, humiliation, and violence, Parliament introduced stringent provisions, including a bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18. This statutory exclusion is one of the most debated aspects of the Act, especially when courts face allegations of false implication.
The central question is: Can the absence of a prima facie offence justify the grant of anticipatory bail despite Section 18 of the SC/ST Act?
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. (2025 INSC 1067) provides a comprehensive answer. The Court reaffirmed that while Section 18 imposes a near-absolute bar, anticipatory bail may still be granted where no prima facie case is disclosed.
This article critically examines the statutory framework, judicial precedents, and the 2025 ruling to analyse whether the absence of a prima facie offence is a valid ground for anticipatory bail under SC/ST matters.
Statutory Framework
Section 18: Bar on Anticipatory Bail
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), stating:
“Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.”
Thus, once an accusation under the SC/ST Act is made, anticipatory bail is ordinarily unavailable.
Section 18A: Strengthening the Bar
Through the 2018 amendment, Section 18A further provided:
- No preliminary inquiry is required before registration of FIR.
- No approval is necessary for arrest.
- Section 438 CrPC shall not apply notwithstanding any contrary judgment.
This statutory scheme reflects a clear legislative intent to deny anticipatory bail in SC/ST cases to safeguard victims from intimidation and secondary victimisation.
Judicial Precedents
The judiciary has repeatedly grappled with balancing the legislative bar and constitutional rights.
- State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) 3 SCC 221: Upheld the validity of Section 18, emphasising that offences under the Act form a distinct class linked to untouchability, and excluding anticipatory bail was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 21.
- Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795: Held that if the complaint specifically alleges caste-based insult or intimidation, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Courts should not conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage.
- Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727: The three-judge bench reiterated that anticipatory bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, it clarified that where no prima facie case is made out, anticipatory bail may be granted.
- Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249): The Court held that anticipatory bail may be considered only if prima facie no offence is disclosed, emphasising that mere allegations without caste-specific insult or public view element do not attract the bar.
- Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710: Stressed that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s), insult must be targeted intentionally on account of caste, not arising from personal or property disputes.
2025 Supreme Court Ruling: Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain
Facts of the Case
- FIR alleged that the accused persons attacked the complainant, a member of the Matang community, with an iron rod, abused him with casteist slurs (“Mangtyano”), molested his mother, and threatened to burn their house after he voted against them in elections.
- Offences were registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
- The Sessions Court rejected anticipatory bail citing specific caste-based allegations witnessed in public view.
- The High Court, however, granted anticipatory bail, terming the allegations exaggerated and politically motivated.
Issues
- Whether Section 18 bars anticipatory bail in all cases under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the High Court erred in granting bail by treating allegations as politically motivated without acknowledging the prima facie offences.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- Absolute Bar with a Narrow Exception: Section 18 excludes anticipatory bail, but where the FIR on its face discloses no offence, courts may intervene. However, this must be apparent at first blush, not after a detailed evidentiary analysis.
- High Court’s Error: The High Court committed a jurisdictional error by conducting a mini-trial and disregarding explicit casteist allegations, contrary to Vilas Pawar and Prathvi Raj Chauhan.
- Public View Requirement Satisfied: The incident occurred outside the complainant’s house in the presence of others, satisfying the “public view” element under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).
- Caste Nexus Established: The derogatory word “Mangtyano” was directed at the complainant because of his caste identity and voting choice, establishing the caste nexus necessary for SC/ST offences.
Decision
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, cancelled anticipatory bail, and restored the Sessions Court’s decision.
- It clarified that its findings were prima facie and limited to the bail stage.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice B.R. Gavai (CJI), Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria:
In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that 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 benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.
The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.
Judicial Reasoning and Its Implications
1. The Principle of Prima Facie Offence
The Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is impermissible when a prima facie offence is disclosed. Thus, the absence of prima facie offence remains the only ground on which anticipatory bail may be granted in SC/ST cases.
2. Protection v. Abuse of Law
The bar under Section 18 aims to protect victims, but it cannot be misused for false implication. Courts, therefore, must strike a balance:
- If allegations are caste-neutral or incidental, anticipatory bail may be granted.
- If allegations clearly involve caste-based humiliation, anticipatory bail must be denied.
3. Limited Judicial Scrutiny
Courts must avoid converting bail hearings into trials. The scope is confined to a plain reading of the FIR:
- If the FIR alleges caste insult in public view, Section 18 applies.
- Courts cannot weigh inconsistencies in witness testimony at this stage.
4. Reinforcing Social Justice
The judgment underscores that the SC/ST Act is not just penal but a constitutional tool to achieve equality (Article 17 – abolition of untouchability; Article 46 – promotion of educational and economic interests of SC/ST). Denying anticipatory bail where offences are prima facie established reinforces this constitutional vision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain settles the debate:
- Section 18 creates a near-absolute bar on anticipatory bail in SC/ST offences.
- Exception: Bail may be granted only if, on the face of the FIR, no prima facie offence under the Act is made out.
- Courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or dismiss allegations as political without acknowledging caste-specific slurs and public humiliation.
Thus, the absence of a prima facie offence is indeed a valid ground for anticipatory bail in SC/ST matters. But where allegations clearly disclose caste-based insult or intimidation in public view, anticipatory bail must be denied to ensure protection of vulnerable communities and uphold the objectives of the SC/ST Act.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams