Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-003867-003867 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 26602/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on Section 18 bar |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (SC/ST Act; CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in offences punishable under the Act. Only where the allegations in the FIR do not make out any prima facie offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act can a court still consider anticipatory bail. A court must decide based on the bare allegations in the FIR without conducting a mini-trial or critical evidence analysis. The High Court’s evaluation of witness testimony and reliance on alleged inconsistencies constituted a jurisdictional error. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
On 25.11.2024 the complainant, a member of the Matang (Scheduled Caste) community, was abused with casteist slur (“Mangtyano”) and beaten with an iron rod outside his home by respondent-accused and others for not voting as they directed. His mother and aunt were similarly insulted and assaulted, household items damaged, and threats uttered to burn their house. The FIR was registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(o),(r),(s),(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. |
| Citations | 2025 INSC 1067 (Reportable) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 18 SC/ST Act is an absolute bar on anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in prima facie SC/ST offences.
- Anticipatory bail may be granted only if no prima facie offence is made out from the FIR.
- Courts must decide bail applications on the face of the FIR; no mini-trial or detailed evidence appraisal permitted.
- Clarifies “any place within public view” includes areas outside a home visible to passers-by.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to counter High Court orders granting anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 CrPC for arrests in offences under the Act.
- Article 17 of the Constitution and the Act’s object and reasons justify a distinct class of offences requiring stricter bail norms.
- Precedent (Ram Krishna Balothia; Kartar Singh; Pawar; Chauhan) upholds constitutional validity and statutory bar of Section 18.
- Only where the FIR allegations do not prima facie constitute an SC/ST offence can the court consider anticipatory bail.
- The High Court misapplied the law by examining inconsistencies in witness statements and conducting a mini-trial.
- The bare reading of the FIR established all ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(o),(r),(s),(w)(i) SC/ST Act within public view.
- The Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory-bail order and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (State / Complainant)
- Section 18 SC/ST Act creates an absolute bar on anticipatory bail.
- FIR allegations of casteist insults, intimidation, and violence clearly make out offences under Section 3.
- High Court erred in overlooking Section 18 and in conducting a mini-trial on inconsistencies.
Respondent (Accused No.1)
- Section 18 is not absolute; precedents (Shajan Skaria) require prima facie evaluation only.
- Allegations arose from election anger, not a casteist motive; FIR exaggerated.
State of Maharashtra
- Emphasised the clear bar in Section 18 and the prima facie material in the FIR.
Factual Background
In the morning of 25.11.2024, the complainant and his family were attacked outside their home by respondent-accused and others for not voting as directed. The accused used casteist slurs, beat the complainant and his relatives with iron rods, threatened to burn their house, and damaged household items. The complainant belonged to the Matang (Scheduled Caste) community. An FIR was registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(o),(r),(s),(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The Additional Sessions Judge denied anticipatory bail; the High Court granted it; this appeal challenged that relief.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1)(o): Offence for voting/not voting for a candidate.
- Section 3(1)(r): Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in public view.
- Section 3(1)(s): Abusing by caste name in public view.
- Section 3(1)(w)(i): Intentional sexual touching of SC/ST woman.
- Section 18: Excludes Section 438 CrPC for SC/ST Act offences—no anticipatory bail.
- Section 18A(2): Reinforces exclusion, no preliminary enquiry or prior approval for arrest required.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None – Unanimous judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None identified.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025 INSC 1067 (Reportable)
- (1995) 3 SCC 221
- (1994) 3 SCC 569
- (2012) 8 SCC 795
- (2020) 4 SCC 727
- 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249
- (2020) 10 SCC 710
- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668
- 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2015