Why in news?

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order granting anticipatory bail in a caste crime case (Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain).

The Bench led by CJI B. R. Gavai ruled that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, bars anticipatory bail when a prima facie case exists. The case arose from caste-based assault, abuse, and intimidation connected to an electoral dispute.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
• Background of the Case
• Why Anticipatory Bail is Barred under the SC/ST Act
• Key Observations of the Supreme Court
• The Way Forward

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

• The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to protect members of SC and ST communities from caste-based discrimination, violence, and exploitation.
• It criminalises a wide range of atrocities such as caste-based abuse, social and economic boycotts, land grabbing, sexual violence, and denial of access to public spaces.
• The Act provides for special courts to ensure speedy trials, stringent punishments to deter offenders, and protective measures such as victim and witness protection, relief, and rehabilitation.
• A key feature is Section 18, which bars anticipatory bail for offences under the Act, recognising the risk of intimidation and retaliation against victims.
• Over time, amendments have further strengthened provisions by adding new offences, enhancing victim compensation, and placing greater accountability on public officials to prevent neglect of duties.

Background of the Case

• In November 2024, a Scheduled Caste member, filed an FIR alleging that few persons attacked him and his family, abused using caste slurs, for refusing to vote as directed during Assembly elections.
• While the Additional Sessions Judge at Paranda denied anticipatory bail citing casteist intent and corroboration.
• The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) overturned this, calling the case politically motivated and inconsistent, and granted bail — leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Why Anticipatory Bail is Barred under the SC/ST Act?

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, expressly bars anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS).
• This safeguard was introduced by Parliament to protect victims from intimidation and ensure fair prosecution.
• Relying on precedents like Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), Vilas Pawar (2012), and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020), the Court held that atrocities under this Act form a separate class linked to systemic caste discrimination, and the bar is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21.
• Courts, it clarified, must not conduct a “mini-trial” at the bail stage, but only assess if a prima facie case exists.
• In this case, caste slurs, public assault, and an electoral motive placed the offence firmly within the Act’s ambit, ruling out anticipatory bail.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

• The Bench clarified that insults and assaults occurring outside a complainant’s home, visible to others, qualify as acts “within public view” under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
• It further held that targeting the complainant for his voting choice attracted Section 3(1)(o), which penalises coercion or retaliation in electoral matters against SC/ST members.
• Independent witness statements, weapon recovery, and medical evidence reinforced the prosecution’s case, making the High Court’s dismissal of the FIR unsustainable.
• The Court also cautioned High Courts against evaluating evidence at the pre-arrest bail stage.
• Ultimately, it cancelled the anticipatory bail, terming the High Court’s order a “manifest error and jurisdictional illegality.”

The Way Forward

• The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that the SC/ST Act is a substantive safeguard for the dignity and security of vulnerable communities, not a mere formality.
• The strict bar on anticipatory bail is constitutionally valid as it prevents intimidation and retaliation against Dalit and tribal complainants.
• Courts must uphold the legislative intent of Section 18 by applying the prima facie test strictly on FIRs, without engaging in evidence analysis or dismissing allegations as exaggerated.
• The judgment also highlights that electoral retaliation against SC/ST voters undermines both democratic participation and social justice. By reinforcing accountability, it ensures the rule of law protects the most marginalised.