Supreme Court of India
KIRANversusRAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAIN & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1067
- Decided
- 1 September 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 creates an absolute bar to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC where a prima facie case under Section 3 of the Act is made out, rendering the High Court’s order granting bail illegal.
Summary
The case arose from an FIR filed by Kiran, a member of the Scheduled Caste ‘Mang’, alleging that Rajkumar Jain and others assaulted him, his mother and aunt with an iron rod, used caste‑based slurs and threatened to burn their house after he voted against a candidate. The accused sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which the trial court denied but the High Court granted. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bars the grant of anticipatory bail when a prima facie case under Section 3 of the Act is made out. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that the bar is absolute unless the FIR does not disclose a prima facie offence, which was not the case here as the caste‑based insult and public‑view assault satisfied the elements of the offence. Consequently, the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed, cancelling the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the present case.
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, making the bar under Section 18 applicable.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 115(1), s. 118(1), s. 189(2), s. 189(4), s. 190, s. 191(2), s. 191(3), s. 324(4), s. 333, s. 351(3), s. 352, s. 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 18, s. 18A, s. 3(1)(o), s. 3(1)(r), s. 3(1)(s), s. 3(1)(w)(i)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the pre-arrest bail to respondent-accused u/s.438 Cr.PC in respect of alleged commission of offenses punishable u/ss.118(1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya u/ss.3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.118 (1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3),
Subjects
Anticipatory BailSection 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989Applicability of Section 438 CrPCPrima facie merits"Mang" or "Matang"Abusive casteist utteranceOutside the housePlace within public view
Judgment
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 283 : 2025 INSC 1067
Kiran
v.
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3867 of 2025)
01 September 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the pre-arrest
bail to respondent-accused u/s.438 Cr.PC in respect of alleged
commission of offenses punishable u/ss.118(1), 115(1), 189(2),
189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3) and 352
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and u/ss.3(1)(o), 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 – ss.118 (1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2),
191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3), 352 – Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 –
ss.3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 18 – Allegation that the
accused persons beat the complainant with iron rod and
threatened to burn the house – The word “Mangatyano”
was used with a clear intention to humiliate the complainant
because he belonged to the said Scheduled Caste community –
The mother and aunt of the appellant-complainant were also
meted out similar treatment – FIR registered – Respondent-
accused sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the
trial Court – However, the High Court granted anticipatory
bail – Correctness:
Held: 1. The High Court in proceeding to evaluate the testimony
of witnesses and to opine on that basis that there were certain
discrepancies, no offence was made out, committed a manifest
error – The anticipatory bail granted by overlooking of and
disregarding the bar of s.18 of the 1989 Act was a clear illegality
* Author
284 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and jurisdictional error committed by the High Court – The order of
the High Court could not be sustained in the eye of law. [Para 9]
2. The provision of s.18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability
of s.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 – Where on the face of it the offence u/s.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 u/s.438 of the Code – In the instant case, the
said abusive utterances and conduct by the accused, the caste
nexus was established – The complainant was humiliated with
casteist and abusive approach for the reason that he did not vote
in favour of particular candidate one accused no.8 in the Assembly
Election as desired by the respondent-accused – In the present
case, the incident took place outside the house of the appellant
which could be viewed by anybody – It was indeed a place within
public view – There is no gainsaying that in the facts of the case
all ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute offences u/s.3
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 as alleged
in the FIR stood satisfied. [Paras 6, 6.1, 7.1, 8]
Case Law Cited
State of M.P. & Anr. v. Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr. [1995] 1 SCR 897
: (1995) 3 SCC 221; Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
[2012] 8 SCR 270 : (2012) 8 SCC 795; Prathvi Raj Chauhan v.
Union of India [2020] 2 SCR 727 : (2020) 4 SCC 727 – relied on.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 2 SCR 375 : (1994) 3 SCC
569; Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand [2020] 9 SCR 593 :
(2020) 10 SCC 710; Ramesh Chandra Vaish v. State of U.P. [2023]
6 SCR 643 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668; Shajan Skaria v. The
State of Kerala & Anr. [2024] 8 SCR 1086 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2249; Karuppudayar v. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Lalguid Trichy & Ors. [2025] 1 SCR 1381: 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2015; Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing
Counsel & Anr. [2008] 12 SCR 132 – referred to.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 285
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
List of Keywords
Anticipatory Bail; Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes, Act, 1989; Applicability of Section 438 CrPC; Prima facie
merits; “Mang” or “Matang”; Abusive casteist utterance; Outside
the house; Place within public view.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3867 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 201 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Ms. Srishty Pandey, B Dhananjay,
M/S. Juristrust Law Offices.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Amol V Deshmukh, Ms. Ira Mahajan,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang
B. Varma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
N.V. Anjaria, J.
Leave granted.
1.1 With the consent of learned counsels for the parties and upon
their joint request, the appeal was taken up for final hearing
today.
2. By way of present appeal, what is called in question is judgment and
order dated 29.04.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
286 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.201 of 2025, whereby
the High Court allowed the pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1 under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was
refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda.
3. FIR No.255/2024 came to be registered by the appellant-complainant
with the Paranda Police Station, District Dharashiv on 26.11.2024
against accused-respondent No.1 herein and others in respect of
alleged commission of offenses punishable 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections
3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.1 The relevant and material part of the contents of the said FIR
is extracted below.
“Today on 25.11.2024 at around 11:00 AM, while I and
my mother Mohini were at home, Bahubali Masalkar,
a peon from the Gram Panchayat Office, Kapilapuri,
came in front of my house and started abusing us,
asking why we did not vote in yesterday’s assembly
elections as we had asked. At that time, I tried to tell
him that voting was my only concern, but he abused
me and then rushed at me. At that time, we got into
a fight. After that we got into a fight. After that he
left from there.
Then at 11:20 in the morning, my village’s known,
namely Rajkumar Jain, Jaykumar Jain, Bharatesh
Awani, Jayghosh Jain, Kishore Awani, Vaibhav
Awani, Nabiraj Awani, Bahubali Masalkar, Jitendra
Wasgadekar, Anil Wasgadekar, Ranjit Rajkumar Jain,
Jagdish Jain, all residents of Kapilapuri (all Jains),
came in front of our house. At that time, Rajkumar
Jain said to me, “Mangtyano, you have become much
arrogant”, you are staying in the village and voting
against me, so he hit me on the head and back with
an iron rod.” At that time, I fell down. After that, Kishore
Jain and Vaibhav Awani entered my house, pushed
my mother Mohini and aunt Rekha, grabbed the
saree of mother Mohini and pulled it, threatened that
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 287
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
“Mangtyano, you have become arrogant, we will not let
you stay in the village, we will burn your houses,” beat
them with an iron rod and even punched them giving
internal injuries. In it, a one-tola gold mangalsutra from
mother Mohini’s fortune necklace fell somewhere in the
scuffle. The household utensils were damaged by the
rioters, causing total damage to our household items.
Seeing us being beaten up, my friend Yashwant
Bodre from the village came to the house to resolve
the dispute. Rajkurhar Jain also said to him that you
Ramoshi have also become arrogant, that you voted
for someone else in yesterday’s assembly elections
without listening to us; so he beat Yashwant on the
left hand and back with an iron rod in his hand. At that
time, some of them had petrol bottle in their hands
and were shouting and threatening repeatedly that
they would burn our houses and not let us stay in
the village. Due to the noise of this commotion, three
of our villagers, Avinash Masgude, Appa Masgude,
Omkar Mane, came to the house and rescued us
from the clutches of these men. After that, when
approached to the Paranda police station to file a
complaint, the police immediately gave us a letter
for medical treatment and sent us to the Paranda
Sub-District Hospital for medical treatment.
On 25.11,2024 between 11:00 AM to 11.20 AM, the
names of Rajkumar Jain, Jaykumar Jain, Bharatesh
Awani, Jayghosh Jain, Kishore Awani, Vaibhav
Awani, Nabiraj Awani, Bahubali Masalkar, Jitendra
Wasgadekar, Anil Wasgadekar, Ranjeet Rajkumar
Jain, Jagdish Jain, all residents of Kapilapuri, angry
that I voted against them in yesterday’s assembly
elections, even though they knew that I and my family
belongs to the Matang community, they abused us in
caste terms, beat us with an iron rod and injured us,
and they also entered my house and beat my mother
and aunt abusing in filthy language, and they pulled
my mother’s saree and molested her, so I have a
complaint against them.
288 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
I am giving my above statement with full of my
consciousness and after reading it, I found it
completely correct as per my narration.”
3.2 What is narrated in the FIR disclosed certain manifest aspects.
On 25.11.2024 in the morning, the respondent-accused along
with others went to the house of the appellant and standing
outside and in front of appellant’s house stated to the appellant
“Mangtyano, you have become much arrogant, you are staying
in the village and voting against me”. The appellant was attacked
with an iron rod. The mother and aunt of the appellant were
addressed with the same set of words as above and that they
all were beaten with the iron rod and were punched inflicting
internal injuries, the Mangalsutra of the mother fell somewhere
in the scuffle. The accused had in their hands petrol bottles
and were repeatedly shouting and threatening that they would
burn the house of the appellant. The injured appellant lodged
the FIR from the hospital.
3.3 The evident reason for this incident was animosity generated in
the mind of the accused in respect of appellant’s act of not voting
in favour of particular candidate in the assembly elections which
had concluded on the previous day. The exhibition of enmity
by the accused, their utterances as above and the conduct of
beating the appellant and hurling castiest abuses and threats
were in public view, outside the house of the appellant. The
appellant belonged to the Scheduled Caste community whose
caste was “Mang” or “Matang”; whereas the respondent accused
was not the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
community. He hailed from ‘Jain’ community.
3.4 While rejecting the prayer of respondent-accused for anticipatory
bail, the Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda recorded findings
in paragraph 8 of his order inter alia that there was a specific
allegation against the accused and that the accused had
abused the complainant by referring to his caste, that the
caste certificate confirmed that the complainant-informant
belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and further that
the incident was witnessed by independent witnesses. On the
basis of statements in the FIR and the material available, the
court concluded that the ingredients of the offences punishable
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 289
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
“the SC/ST Act”) as alleged were made out.
3.5 When the order rejecting the anticipatory bail was challenged
before the High Court by the accused, the High Court took the
view to record that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution
story as could be gathered from the account of eye-witnesses.
According to the High Court, the entire prosecution case
appeared to be exaggerated and false. What weighed with the
High Court was also the aspect that the incident took place
immediately after the declaration of results of the assembly
elections, therefore, it had political overtures. Resting on such
considerations, the High Court concluded that the appellant was
falsely implicated. Further referring to the nature of the injuries
and allegations, the High Court granted anticipatory bail.
4. Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-herein assailed the judgment and order of the High
Court to submit that the High Court not only misdirected itself in
exercise of the discretion to grant bail to respondent No.1, but it
plainly overlooked the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
Highlighting the contents of and the allegations in the FIR, it was
submitted that the accused used abusive language referring to
caste and the appellant who was the member of the Scheduled
Caste community was thereby subjected to derogation and insult.
The appellant was intimidated and his mother and aunt were also
abused with castiest slur and were threatened. Learned counsel for
the appellant further submitted that the castiest slur and the castiest
abuse employed against the appellant clearly made out the offence
under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act as alleged and since the offence
was prima facie committed, the pre-arrest bail could not have been
granted by the High Court in view of the provision of Section 18 of
the Act.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Vilas
Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra1 to submit that
at the stage of the consideration of grant of bail or otherwise,
the High Court was not expected to conduct a mini trial. It
1 (2012) 8 SCC 795
290 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was submitted that the reasoning of the High Court was not
acceptable. Regarding bar created by virtue of Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act, learned counsel pressed into service the decision
of this Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India2.
4.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 seeking
to defend the order of the High Court, submitted that Section
18 of the SC/ST Act did not create an absolute bar to grant
anticipatory bail. He proceeded to submit that in subsequent
decision of this Court in Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala
& Anr.3, it was observed that the court needed to undertake an
exercise to find out whether there was a prima facie substance
in the allegations. According to learned counsel for respondent
No.1, the allegations in the FIR were made for the sake of
making and were out of anger regarding casting of vote in the
assembly elections. He tried to submit that it was wrong to give
a castiest colour to the allegations to conclude that any offence
under the SC/ST Act was committed by the accused.
4.3 The respondent-State of Maharashtra filed the counter affidavit
and opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1
accused by emphasising the operational ambit of Section 18
of the SC/ST Act. It was highlighted that when prima facie
material existed in the form of allegations in the FIR and other
attendant factual aspects, the respondent No.1 could not have
been granted the anticipatory bail by the High Court.
5. Amongst the offences alleged in the FIR, included those under
Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act. The
relevant extract of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is as under.
“3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— (1) Whoever,
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,
(b) to (n) … … …
(o) commits any offence under this Act against a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe for having
2 (2020) 4 SCC 727
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 291
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
voted or not having voted for a particular candidate or for
having voted in a manner provided by law;
(p) … … …
(q) … … …
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;
(t) … … …
(u) … … …
(v) … … …
(w) (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that
she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
when such act of touching is of a sexual nature and is
without the recipient’s consent; (ii) uses words, acts or
gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging
to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that
she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
5.1 Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is reproduced:
“18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to
persons committing an offence under the Act.—
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.”
5.1.1 Section 18A in its sub section (1) of the Act provides
that for the registration of an FIR against any person,
preliminary enquiry shall not be required. It is further
stated that the investigating officer shall not be required
to take approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person
against whom an accusation about the commission of
an offence under this SC/ST Act has been made. Sub
292 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
section (2) of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act mentions
that the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.PC shall
not apply to a case under this Act notwithstanding any
judgment or order or direction of any Court.
5.2 It is evident from the above provision of Section 18 that it
expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“hereinafter referred to as “the
Cr.PC”). In another 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. The Legislature has taken away the benefit of
anticipatory bail in respect of the arrest for the offences alleged
under the SC/ST Act. The bar in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act
would operate.
5.3 While upholding the Constitutional validity of Section 18 of
the Act, this Court in State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ram Krishna
Balothia & Anr.4 observed as under,
“… The offences enumerated under the said Act
fall into a separate and special class. Article 17 of
the Constitution expressly deals with abolition of
‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form.
It also provides that enforcement of any disability
arising out of ‘untouchability’ shall be an offence
punishable in accordance with law. The offences,
therefore, which are enumerated under Section 3(1)
arise out of the practice of ‘untouchability’.”
(Para 6)
5.3.1 The court proceeded to observe,
“The exclusion of Section 438 CrPC in connection
with offences under the Act has to be viewed in the
contest of the prevailing social conditions which give
rise to such offences, and the apprehension that
perpetrators of such atrocities are likely to threaten
and intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct
4 (1995) 3 SCC 221
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 293
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the
offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail as
pointed out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Act. In these circumstances, if anticipatory
bail is not made available to persons who commit
such offences, such a denial cannot be considered
as unreasonable or violative of Article 14, as these
offences form a distinct class by themselves and
cannot be compared with other offences”
(para 6)
5.4 The aforesaid bar is held to be not violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution. In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab5 it was
stated that taking away the right of pre-arrest bail under Section
438 of the Cr.PC, under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not
infringe the right to personal liberty.
5.5 In Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra6, this
Court explained the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act
against grant of anticipatory bail in the following words,
“Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for
invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, 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. In other words, 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.”
(Para 9)
5.5.1 It was further stated in Vilas Pandurang Pawar (supra),
“Moreover, while considering the application for bail,
scope for appreciation of evidence and other material
5 (1994) 3 SCC 569
6 (2012) 8 SCC 795
294 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on record is limited. The court is not expected
to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on
record. When a provision has been enacted in the
Special Act to protect the persons who belong to
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under
Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special
Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate
discussion on the evidence.”
Para 10)
5.6 A three judge bench of this Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan
(supra) expressed itself thus,
“… exclusion of Section 438 CrPC in connection
with offences under the Act has to be viewed in
the context of the prevailing social conditions which
give rise to such offences, and the apprehension
that 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 as pointed out in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act.”
(Para 6)
5.6.1 This Court emphasised in Prithvi Raj Chauhan (supra)
that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of
right. It was stated that bail is essentially a statutory
right and cannot be said to be an essential ingredient
of Article 21of the Constitution. It was further observed
that if anticipatory bail is not made available to persons
who commit such offences, such a denial cannot be
considered as unreasonable or violative of Article 14, as
these offences form a distinct class by themselves and
cannot be compared with other offences.
5.7 The aforesaid provision of Section 18 and the bar created
thereunder has to be seen in the context of the object and
purpose with which the Parliament enacted the SC/SC Act,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 295
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
1989. This legislation was brought into force with an avowed
object of implementing the measures to improve the socio-
economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, who have remained a vulnerable class in the society.
The underlying idea is to ensure that the persons belonging
to these classes are not denied their civil rights, are not
subjected to indignities and are insulated from humiliation
and harassment.
5.7.1 The provisions of Section 18 in its ultimate analysis,
furthers the very object of the enactment. Seemingly a
stricter provision, it underscores the Constitutional idea
of availing social justice and to ensure the same pedestal
for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community
people with other classes in the society.
5.8 The decision of this Court in Shajan Skaria (supra) sought to
be pressed into service on behalf of respondent No.1 take no
different view. In that case, the Bench of two Judges of this
Court elaborated the law in respect of grant of anticipatory bail,
then highlighted and recognised the bar created under Section
18 of the SC/ST Act to observe that only in the cases where
the offence could not be said to have been made out on a very
prima facie consideration, the court may exercise the discretion
to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused.
5.8.1 In Shajan Skaria (supra) case the appellant-accused
who was an Editor of an Online news channel who
had published a video on YouTube levelling certain
allegations against the complainant who belonged
to “Pulaya” community and who was a Member of
Kerala State Legislative Assembly representing the
constituency which seat was reserved for the member
of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community.
An attentive reading of the broadcast made on YouTube
which was a subject matter in that case, would go to
indicate that there was no reference therein to the
caste name, which aspect becomes clear from the very
translation itself, narrated in the judgment by the Court.
The caste word “Pulaya” was not even referred to in the
complaint also, what was only stated by complainant
296 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the subject matter was on Scheduled Caste community.
In the totality of the circumstances thereby this Court in
Shajan Skaria (supra) took the view that the contents
of the YouTube video displayed by the accused were
not intended to denigrate the complainant as a member
of the Scheduled Caste and that it could not be said
to be with castiest slur.
5.9 In Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.7 as well
as in Ramesh Chandra Vaish vs. State of U.P.8 this Court
stated that intimidation or insult amounts to an offence
under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should have been
targeted intentionally to the member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe community and also because he is member
of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. In
Swarn Singh (supra), it was stated that for making out
the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, it
requires that the insult or intimidation should be at a place
within public view.
6. 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.
6.1 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
7 (2020) 10 SCC 710
8 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 297
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to
the accused under Section 438 of the Code.
6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence
is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive
at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the
first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR.
The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive
in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to
whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not
be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm
or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to
conduct a mini trial.
7. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the respondent-accused
was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
The appellant belonged to scheduled caste community known as
“Mang” or “Matang”. The allegations made in the FIR lodged by the
complainant was that he was addressed by the accused with abusive
casteist utterance “Mangatyano, you are became very arrogant,
you are staying in the village and voting against”. The appellant
was addressed as above by the accused outside the house of the
appellant where others were present
7.1 The accused persons beat the complainant with iron rod and
threatened to burn the house. The mother and aunt of the
appellant-complainant were also meted out similar treatment
with intimidation and were addressed with same casteist slur.
The use of the word “Mangatyano” was with a clear intention
to humiliate the complainant because he belonged to the said
Scheduled Caste community. In the said abusive utterances and
conduct by the accused, the caste nexus was established. The
complainant was humiliated with casteist and abusive approach
for the reason that he did not vote in favour of particular candidate
one Bahubali-accused No.8 in the Assembly Election as desired
by the respondent-accused.
7.2 The incident as above took place outside the house of the
complainant, it was a place within public view. The term
“any place within public view” was considered by this Court
in Swarn Singh (supra) and Hitesh Verma (supra) was
298 [2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
also subsequently referred to in the decision of this Court in
Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Lalguid Trichy & Ors.9 wherein the Court drew
distinction between “public place” and “any place within public
view”. It was held that if the offence is committed outside the
building, for example in the lawn outside the house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lawn outside
the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view.
8. In the present case, as noted above, the incident took place outside
the house of the appellant which could be viewed by anybody. It was
indeed a place within public view. There is no gainsaying that in the
facts of the case all ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute
offences under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Act, 1989 as alleged in the FIR stood satisfied. Furthermore,
the occurrence of incident was fortified by recovery of clothes and
weapons.
9. In the above view, there is no escape from the conclusion that offence
under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out from the bare reading of the FIR.
The High Court in proceeding to evaluate the testimony of witnesses
and to opine on that basis that there were certain discrepancies, no
offence was made out, committed a manifest error. The anticipatory
bail granted by overlooking of and disregarding the bar of Section 18
of the Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by
the High Court. The order of the High Court could not be sustained
in the eye of law.
10. In the result, the judgement 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.
10.1 It is clarified at this stage that the observations and findings
recorded in this judgment are of prima facie nature, limited for
9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2015
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 299
Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
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.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all the interlocutory
applications as may be pending stands disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Anticipatory Bail"Sign in to search