Anticipatory Bail Not Easy under SC/ST Act! Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Crucial for Curbing Dalit Atrocities, A Must-Know for You

New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the Bombay High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), reinforcing stringent restrictions on such relief in cases involving caste-based atrocities.

This ruling is profoundly significant as it strengthens protections for marginalized communities by limiting anticipatory bail in cases of alleged atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), thereby preventing perpetrators from intimidating victims or obstructing justice. The Court emphasized that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail, except in cases where no prima facie offense is established, aligning with the constitutional mandate under Article 17 to eradicate untouchability and promote social justice.

The case originates from an incident reported at Paranda Police Station in Maharashtra’s Dharashiv district, where the appellant, Kiran, a member of the Matang (Mang) Scheduled Caste community, lodged FIR No. 255/2024 on November 26, 2024, against the accused, Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, and others. The FIR invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 118(1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3), and 352, alongside Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.

The incident occurred on November 25, 2024, at around 11:00 AM, a day after the assembly elections. According to the FIR, the accused, along with others, arrived at the appellant’s residence and hurled casteist abuses, targeting Kiran for not voting for their preferred candidate. Rajkumar Jain allegedly addressed Kiran as “Mangtyano, you have become very arrogant” and struck him on the head and back with an iron rod, causing him to collapse. The accused also entered the house, assaulted Kiran’s mother, Mohini, and aunt, Rekha, pulling Mohini’s saree, using casteist slurs, and threatening to burn their house.

A one-tola gold mangalsutra was lost in the scuffle, and household items were damaged. Kiran’s friend, Yashwant Bodre, from the Ramoshi community, was also attacked for voting differently. The accused were reportedly carrying petrol bottles and repeatedly threatened arson. Villagers intervened, rescuing the victims, who were then sent to Paranda Sub-District Hospital for treatment, where the FIR was filed.

The altercation stemmed from the accused’s resentment over the appellant’s voting choice in the assembly elections, an offense under Section 3(1)(o) of the SC/ST Act, which penalizes actions against SC/ST members for their voting decisions. The FIR further alleged caste-based insults and public humiliation (Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)) and non-consensual touching of a sexual nature against SC women (Section 3(1)(w)(i)).

The accused, belonging to the Jain community (not SC/ST), triggered the applicability of the SC/ST Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail plea, finding prima facie evidence of the offense, corroborated by the appellant’s caste certificate and independent witnesses. However, on April 29, 2025, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 201/2025, granted anticipatory bail to Rajkumar Jain, citing inconsistencies in witness accounts, deeming the prosecution’s case exaggerated and politically motivated due to its proximity to the election results. The High Court also noted the nature of injuries as minor.

The Supreme Court, hearing the appellant’s Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8169/2025, delivered its verdict on September 1, 2025, with Justice N.V. Anjaria authoring the judgment, alongside Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, ruling that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act explicitly bars anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in cases involving SC/ST Act offenses.

Citing precedents like Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2012), Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (2020), and Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala (2024), the Court clarified that courts must assess only the FIR’s contents to determine a prima facie case, without delving into evidence or conducting a mini-trial. Here, the FIR clearly established casteist slurs (“Mangtyano”), public humiliation, and violence tied to the appellant’s caste and voting choice, fulfilling the ingredients of Section 3 offenses. The Court rejected the High Court’s analysis of witness discrepancies as erroneous, emphasizing that such evaluation overstepped the scope of bail proceedings and disregarded the statutory bar under Section 18.

The Maharashtra government opposed the bail, reinforcing the FIR’s allegations. The Supreme Court underscored the SC/ST Act’s purpose: to protect vulnerable communities from indignity and harassment, as envisioned in the Constitution. Quoting State of M.P. vs. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), the Court noted that such offenses form a distinct class linked to untouchability, and granting anticipatory bail risks enabling perpetrators to intimidate victims.

The Court also referenced Swarn Singh (2008), Hitesh Verma (2020), and Karuppudayar (2025) to affirm that the incident, occurring outside the appellant’s house, was in “public view,” satisfying the legal requirement for Section 3(1)(r) and (s) offenses. The recovery of clothes and weapons further corroborated the incident. The Court concluded that the High Court’s order was legally unsustainable due to its jurisdictional error in ignoring Section 18’s bar.

This ruling, canceling Rajkumar Jain’s anticipatory bail, has been hailed by Dalit rights activists as a step toward strengthening justice for marginalized communities.

BANAE president Dr Nagsen Sonare said, " This judgement by the bench of Justice BR Gavai declaring anticipatory bail can not be granted under Atrocities Act 1989, is an extremely important judgement as in most cases Session and High Courts grant bail to the accused.

It clarifies that anticipatory bail is not a right under Article 21 and cannot override the SC/ST Act’s protections. The Court noted that its observations are prima facie, solely for deciding the bail issue, and will not influence the trial, which will proceed independently. This decision is poised to deter caste-based atrocities, curb political pressures in such cases, and uphold the SC/ST Act’s objective of fostering social equality.

Sonare stated, "Widespread dissemination of this order is essential because courts across India are granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, which provides moral encouragement to the accused to commit further atrocities against the SC/ST communities. This Supreme Court order should be shared and discussed by all our organizations and associations."

Ashok Bharti, Chairman of the National Confederation of Dalit and Adivasi Organisations (NACDAOR), welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. He stated that NACDAOR suggests the apex court should hold a meeting of judges and judicial officers to ensure that different courts avoid varying interpretations of this issue.