The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail when a prima facie case under the Act is made out from the FIR. The court’s role at this stage is limited to verifying the FIR’s averments and cannot extend to a mini-trial or appreciation of evidence. The High Court erred in disregarding this bar.
Facts Of The Case:
The complainant, belonging to the “Mang” Scheduled Caste community, lodged an FIR alleging that on 25.11.2024, the accused, Rajkumar Jain and others, confronted him outside his home. The accused were angered because the complainant had not voted for their candidate in the recent assembly elections. They verbally abused the complainant using the casteist slur “Mangtyano,” beat him with an iron rod, and threatened to burn his house. The accused also entered his home, where they similarly abused, pushed, and assaulted his mother and aunt, using the same casteist language and causing his mother’s mangalsutra to fall off during the struggle. They were also allegedly holding petrol bottles and issuing threats. The incident occurred in a place within public view. The FIR led to the registration of offences under the Indian Penal Code and, significantly, under various sections of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The core legal dispute arose when the High Court granted the accused anticipatory bail, a decision the Supreme Court set aside for violating the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the rejection of an anticipatory bail application by the accused-respondent from the Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda. Aggrieved by this order, the accused approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which allowed his appeal and granted him pre-arrest bail. The complainant, Kiran, then challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025. The Supreme Court granted leave, and upon hearing the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The apex court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by disregarding the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, and consequently cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Settles Decade-Long Hydel Power Tariff Battle, Explains Limits of Private PPA Changes
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made pivotal observations regarding the application of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It reaffirmed that Section 18 of the Act creates a statutory bar against the grant of anticipatory bail when a prima facie case under the Act is made out from the allegations in the FIR. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the court’s role is limited to a prima facie examination of the FIR’s contents to ascertain if the essential ingredients of the offence are present; it cannot conduct a mini-trial or delve into the appreciation of evidence.Applying this principle, the Court found that the FIR contained specific allegations of the accused using the casteist slur “Mangtyano” to insult and intimidate the complainant in a place within public view, thereby prima facie constituting offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. It held that the High Court erred by overstepping its jurisdiction, evaluating witness testimonies for discrepancies, and concluding the case was exaggerated, thereby illegally granting anticipatory bail in the face of the statutory bar.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Consequently, the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1, Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, was cancelled. The Court held that the High Court committed a manifest legal and jurisdictional error by granting pre-arrest bail while disregarding the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which is applicable when a prima facie case under the Act is disclosed by the FIR. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and for the limited purpose of deciding the bail question, and the trial must proceed on its own merits, uninfluenced by this judgment.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1067 Criminal Appeal No.: (Arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025) Date of Judgement: September 1, 2025 Judges/Justice Name:Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N.V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here