Supreme Court Holds Section 18 Bar To Anticipatory Bail Applies Unless No Prima Facie Case Is Made Out

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s April 29, 2025 order that had allowed anticipatory bail to an accused who faced charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The appeal was filed by the complainant challenging the High Court’s exercise of discretion to grant pre‑arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case where Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly excluded that protection.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1. The bench held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which “expressly excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code,” created a bar against anticipatory bail in cases where allegations under Section 3 of the Act were prima facie made out; however, the Court recognised a limited rider where on the face of the complaint no such offence was prima facie made out. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code. 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. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.” The Court further recorded: “The anticipatory bail granted to respondent No. 1 stands cancelled.”

Background The dispute arose from FIR No.255/2024 lodged on November 26, 2024 at Paranda Police Station (Dharashiv), after an incident on November 25, 2024. The complainant (appellant before the Supreme Court) alleged that respondent No.1 and others, following the assembly polls, came to his house, abused him with caste‑based epithets, assaulted him and his relatives with an iron rod, threatened to burn their houses and used petrol bottles in threats. The complainant belonged to the Matang (Mang) community and alleged casteist abuse and intimidation; the FIR invoked multiple offences under Section 3(1)(o), (r), (s), (w)(i) of the SC/ST Act and various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Additional Sessions Judge at Paranda had refused anticipatory bail, finding specific allegations of casteist abuse and independent witnesses, and concluding that ingredients of the SC/ST Act appeared satisfied. The High Court, however, granted anticipatory bail on April 29, 2025, noting perceived inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and observing that the incident followed closely after election results, giving it political overtones and suggesting possible false implication.

On appeal, counsel for the complainant argued that the High Court erred in overlooking Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which removes the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. when offences under the Act are prima facie made out; reliance was placed on precedents including Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Prathvi Raj Chauhan to stress that courts should not conduct a mini‑trial at bail stage and that the statutory bar was permissible. Counsel for the accused relied on Shajan Skaria to contend that Section 18 did not operate as an absolute bar where a prima facie case was absent.

The Supreme Court reviewed statutory text and precedent, reiterated the object of the SC/ST Act to protect vulnerable communities and observed that while Section 18 excludes anticipatory bail, a court retains a narrow power to grant pre‑arrest bail where the FIR’s averments, on their face, demonstrate that no offence under Section 3 was made out. Applying these principles to the present FIR, the Court found that the allegations—use of the caste epithet “Mangatyano” in public view, assault with iron rods, threats to burn houses and targeting because of voting choice—were sufficient on first blush to attract the SC/ST Act. The High Court’s assessment of witness discrepancies and credibility crossed into impermissible appraisal of evidence at the anticipatory bail stage, the Supreme Court held. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, anticipatory bail stood cancelled, and the trial was directed to proceed independently; all interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1067 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025) Case Title: KIRAN v. RAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAIN & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Respondent No.1 and for the State of Maharashtra (names not specified in the reported judgment)