The Hindu: Published on 16 September 2025.
Why in News?
On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court cancelled anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a caste crime case (Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain).
The Court reaffirmed Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, which bars anticipatory bail where a prima facie case exists.
The ruling reinforces protections for Dalit victims and prevents dilution of the law at the bail stage.
Background / The Story So Far:
FIR (Nov 26, 2024): A Scheduled Caste complainant alleged caste-based assault, abuse, molestation of women family members, looting, and threats linked to electoral retaliation.
Trial court: Rejected anticipatory bail, citing casteist intent and corroboration.
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench): Reversed order, granted anticipatory bail, calling allegations politically motivated.
Supreme Court: Overturned High Court’s decision, holding it was a “manifest error and jurisdictional illegality.”
Facts of the Case:
Attack linked to refusal to vote as directed in Assembly elections.
Assault carried out with weapons, caste abuses hurled, women molested, valuables looted, and home threatened with petrol bottles.
Independent witnesses, recovery of weapons, and medical evidence supported the FIR.
Why is Anticipatory Bail Barred under SC/ST Act?
Section 18 of SC/ST Act excludes Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) to prevent:
- Intimidation of victims.
- Manipulation of evidence.
- Collapse of prosecution.
- Judicial precedents (Balothia 1995, Pawar 2012, Chauhan 2020) upheld this bar as constitutionally valid.
- These offences are tied to systemic caste oppression; hence anticipatory bail is restricted.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court:
Public View Clause: Insults/assaults in front of others meet statutory requirement under Section 3(1)(r).
Electoral Motive: Coercion and retaliation for voting choice attracts Section 3(1)(o).
High Court’s Error: It wrongly treated FIR as exaggerated and political, conducting a “mini-trial.”
Prima Facie Test: At bail stage, courts only need to check if allegations make out a prima facie case—not evaluate evidence.
Constitutional and Legal Standpoint:
The bar on anticipatory bail does not violate Article 14 (Equality) or Article 21 (Life and Liberty).
Instead, it ensures effective protection of Dalit and Adivasi dignity and security.
Implications:
Strengthens victim protection and ensures accountability under SC/ST Act.
Reinforces legislative intent that anticipatory bail must not be used as a loophole in caste crimes.
Recognises democratic rights, as caste-based electoral retaliation undermines free and fair voting.
The Way Forward:
Courts must strictly apply prima facie test at bail stage without entering into evidentiary appreciation.
High Courts should avoid treating caste-crime allegations as exaggerated or politically motivated without trial.
Upholds that SC/ST Act is a substantive shield, not a procedural formality.
Strengthens rule of law and social justice, ensuring judiciary stands firmly with the most marginalised.
Conclusion:
This ruling is a significant reaffirmation of the SC/ST Act’s protective framework. By barring anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court has ensured that caste-crime victims remain shielded from intimidation, while also sending a strong message that electoral coercion and casteist violence strike at both social dignity and democratic integrity.
