The Hindu: Published on 16 September 2025.
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court to a caste crime accused in Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain. The apex court reaffirmed that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars anticipatory bail in such offences, stressing strong protection for Dalit victims and warning courts not to conduct “mini-trials” at the bail stage.
Background / The Story So Far:
On November 26, 2024, an FIR was lodged by Kiran, a Scheduled Caste member, alleging caste-based assault and intimidation linked to Assembly elections.
The accused allegedly attacked with iron rods, abused by caste name, molested women in the family, looted jewelry, and threatened arson.
Sessions Court rejected anticipatory bail citing casteist intent.
Bombay High Court reversed the decision, calling the FIR politically motivated and exaggerated.
On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court order and reinstated the bar on anticipatory bail.
Facts of the Case:
FIR under multiple sections of IPC and SC/ST Act.
Allegations: physical assault, caste slurs, sexual harassment, looting, threats of violence.
Independent witnesses and medical evidence corroborated the complaint.
High Court granted bail, citing inconsistencies.
Supreme Court intervened, citing “jurisdictional illegality.”
Legal Dimension:
Section 18 of SC/ST Act (1989): Excludes anticipatory bail (CrPC Section 438 / BNSS Section 482).
Purpose: Prevent intimidation, ensure effective prosecution.
Precedents cited:
State of M.P. vs Ram Krishna Balothia (1995)
Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (2012)
Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India (2020)
Court clarified:
Prima facie case is enough to deny bail.
No “mini-trial” at bail stage.
Public assault with caste slurs satisfies “within public view” requirement.
Retaliation for voting choices attracts Section 3(1)(o) of the Act.
Key Observations:
Public View Clause: Acts committed outside home, visible to others, count as “public view.”
Electoral Coercion: Targeting SC/ST voters is a punishable offence.
Role of Courts: High Courts should not overstep into detailed evidence evaluation before trial.
Error by High Court: Treating FIR as politically motivated without trial was a “manifest error.”
Impact:
Strengthens victim protection under SC/ST Act.
Reinforces legislative intent of Section 18: to bar anticipatory bail in caste atrocities.
Sends strong message that Dalit dignity, electoral rights, and security must be upheld.
Prevents misuse of anticipatory bail to weaken cases of atrocities.
The Way Forward:
Courts must strictly apply the prima facie test at bail stage.
Avoid premature evaluation of evidence or motive.
Recognize electoral-based caste retaliation as a serious democratic concern.
Maintain judicial consistency with past rulings upholding Section 18.
Ensure accountability and protection for vulnerable communities.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that the SC/ST Act is a substantive shield, not a procedural formality. By cancelling anticipatory bail, the court safeguarded the constitutional rights of Dalits, underlined the validity of Section 18, and reminded lower courts to avoid undermining protective legislation through premature judicial overreach.
This judgment strengthens the rule of law and ensures that justice mechanisms remain firmly aligned with social justice and democratic values.
