The Supreme Court has reiterated that anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) can be granted only when it is evident at first glance that no offence under the Act has been made out.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal of the complainant and overturned the Bombay High Court’s order that had granted anticipatory bail to an accused allegedly involved in caste-based abuse and assault.
Court’s Key Observation
Justice Anjaria, writing the judgment, stated:
“If, on the face of it, the allegations under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act do not make out an offence, the Court may exercise its discretion under Section 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail. However, such a conclusion must arise from the FIR’s averments at first blush, without venturing into a mini-trial or evaluating evidence.”
Case Background
The accused was alleged to have abused and humiliated the complainant in public using a caste slur, threatened to burn his house, and physically assaulted him with an iron rod. The complainant claimed that the abuse stemmed from his refusal to support a particular candidate (accused No. 8) in an Assembly election.
The Court found that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act were prima facie satisfied. It noted that caste-related intent was clearly established through the abusive language used and the circumstances of the assault, which also extended to the complainant’s mother and aunt.
Legal Principle Clarified
The Supreme Court clarified that courts cannot conduct an evidentiary analysis or consider extraneous materials at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. The determination of whether a prima facie offence exists must be based solely on the FIR and its contents at the initial stage.
Outcome
The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s anticipatory bail order, holding that a prima facie offence was made out and that the grant of pre-arrest bail was not justified in this case.
