In a latest ruling, the Supreme Court has reiterated that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is barred by Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, except where no prima facie offence under the Act is disclosed. The observation came while a Bench led by Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that had granted anticipatory bail to an accused facing charges under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.

Facts:

The factual matrix of the matter, as per a complaint, is that on 25th November 2025, the accused, along with others, went to the complainant’s house and allegedly addressed him with casteist slurs stating,“Mangtyano, you have become much arrogant, you are staying in the village and voting against me.”

The accused allegedly attacked the complainant with an iron rod, assaulted his mother and aunt, and threatened to burn down the house while carrying petrol bottles. The mother’s Mangalsutra fell during the scuffle. The FIR was lodged from the hospital.

The incident was reportedly triggered by enmity over the complainant’s voting choice in the assembly elections held the previous day. The complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste “Mang/Matang” community, while the accused hailed from the Jain community.

The Additional Sessions court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The court found that there were specific allegations, caste-based abuse was evident, the caste certificate confirmed the complainant’s status, and independent witnesses had supported the account.

However, the Bombay High Court later granted anticipatory bail, citing alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s story, political overtures linked to the elections, and what it termed “exaggerated and false” allegations.

The apex court held that the FIR disclosed all ingredients of offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, including physical assault and intentional humiliation in public view.

Clarifying the standard, the Bench said:
“Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard.”

It further emphasised that courts cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or weigh evidence while considering anticipatory bail under the Act.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and refused anticipatory bail to the accused.

Case Title: Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Adv. Ms. Srishty Pandey, Adv. Mr. B Dhananjay, Adv. M/S. Juristrust Law Offices, AOR

For Respondent(s) : R-1 Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv. R-2 Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.