The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - which bars anticipatory bail - cannot be invoked unless the offence is demonstrably rooted in caste-based hatred. This ruling reinforces that procedural safeguards under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 must not be overridden by blanket assumptions of caste motive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Anand Tiwari, was accused of sexually assaulting a woman, now his wife, under multiple statutes including Section 64(2)(m), Section 351(2), and Section 115(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(va) and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged the assault occurred 5 - 6 years prior to its filing, despite the victim being a major at the time of the alleged incident.
Procedural History
- 2025: Crime No. 421/2025 registered at Police Station Khurai, Sagar
- December 2025: First anticipatory bail application withdrawn by applicant
- January 2026: Second application filed under Section 482 of BNSS
- Court proceedings: Victim appeared in person; submitted NOC; produced 10th standard mark-sheet confirming birth date as 18.06.2005
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, asserting he was falsely implicated due to family pressure on the victim, who had voluntarily left home, married him, and initially supported his innocence. He argued no caste-based motive existed to trigger Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which bars anticipatory bail, applies when the alleged offence lacks any demonstrable caste-based animus, even if the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel argued that the victim and applicant had voluntarily entered into marriage, registered under the Special Marriage Act, and were living together. The victim herself submitted a written NOC for bail and produced official documents proving her majority. The applicant had lodged the missing person report, undermining any claim of abduction or coercion. The prosecution’s reliance on Section 18 was misplaced, as no evidence suggested the crime stemmed from caste prejudice.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is absolute and non-derogable, and that the mere fact of the victim being from a Scheduled Tribe rendered the offence non-bailable. It relied on the victim’s later statement supporting the prosecution and the inclusion of SC/ST (POA) Act provisions in the FIR.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and contextual analysis of Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It emphasized that the provision’s purpose is to deter atrocities motivated by caste-based hatred, not to criminalize all offences involving victims from Scheduled Castes or Tribes.
"It is not a case of sexual assault on the basis of caste. The material available on record prima facie does not show that any offence on the basis of caste was committed."
The Court noted that the victim’s voluntary departure from home, cohabitation with the applicant, marriage registration, and subsequent NOC collectively indicated a consensual relationship. The allegation of prior sexual assault, if true, was not linked to caste identity but to personal dynamics. The Court distinguished this from cases where caste-based humiliation, public outrage, or social boycott accompanied the offence.
It further held that Section 18 cannot be invoked merely because the victim belongs to a protected class. The mens rea and motive must be established. The Court applied the principle from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar that bail should not be denied on the basis of allegations alone, especially where the facts suggest fabrication or coercion.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act does not bar anticipatory bail where the alleged offence lacks a caste-based motive. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to cooperation with the investigation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caste Motive Must Be Evidenced, Not Assumed
- Practitioners must now demand specific pleadings linking the offence to caste-based hatred to invoke Section 18
- Merely naming SC/ST (POA) Act provisions in an FIR is insufficient to deny bail
- Courts must examine the nature of the relationship, context of the incident, and presence of caste-based slurs or social stigma
Consent and Post-Facto Retraction Do Not Automatically Validate FIR
- If the victim initially supports the accused and later retracts under family pressure, courts must scrutinize the credibility of the complaint
- Documentary evidence of consent (e.g., marriage registration, NOC) carries significant weight in bail proceedings
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate that the retraction was voluntary and not coerced
Procedural Compliance Under BNSS Is Non-Negotiable
- Section 482 of BNSS remains the primary avenue for anticipatory bail where special statutes impose restrictions
- Courts must balance statutory bars with constitutional rights under Article 21
- Conditions under Section 482(2) must be clearly articulated and proportionate to the risk of flight or tampering
