The Bombay High Court’s interim order in Sudhir Laxman Agguwar’s appeal underscores a critical threshold for invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: allegations must meet a minimum threshold of plausibility. Where the complainant admits to a long-standing consensual relationship, courts cannot mechanically apply provisions meant to address caste-based violence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sudhir Laxman Agguwar, faces criminal proceedings in Crime No. 01 of 2026 at Police Station Reguntha, Gadchiroli, for alleged offences under Section 3(1)(r), (s), and (w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside Sections 69, 88, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecutrix alleges non-consensual sexual contact. However, she herself has asserted a consensual romantic relationship with the appellant spanning eight years.
Procedural History
- The appellant approached the Sessions Court seeking interim protection from arrest.
- The Sessions Court declined protection under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, finding no prima facie case.
- The Court further observed that Section 3(1)(w) - which criminalizes sexual assault on a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe - also did not prima facie apply, given the admitted consensual history.
- Aggrieved by the lack of formal protection, the appellant filed this appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought interim protection from arrest and, in the alternative, anticipatory bail pending investigation. He argued that the allegations were inconsistent with the statutory intent of the SC/ST Act, which targets caste-motivated violence, not private disputes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be invoked where the complainant admits to a long-term consensual relationship with the accused, and no evidence suggests the sexual act was non-consensual or motivated by caste animus.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that Section 3(1)(w) requires proof of non-consensual sexual contact coupled with caste-based hostility. The mere fact that both parties belong to Scheduled Castes or Tribes does not transform a private, consensual relationship into an atrocity. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh and K. Srinivas v. State of Telangana, where courts held that the SC/ST Act cannot be misused to settle personal vendettas. The appellant argued that the Sessions Court correctly identified the absence of prima facie elements.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not oppose the grant of interim relief. The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the allegations lacked the necessary nexus to caste-based atrocity, and that the consensual nature of the relationship undermined the applicability of Section 3(1)(w). The State did not contest the appellant’s request for interim protection.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 3(1)(w), which was designed to deter sexual violence against Dalit women by members of dominant castes. The Court noted that the provision does not create a blanket prohibition on sexual relations between members of Scheduled Castes or Tribes. Rather, it targets acts of sexual violence that are rooted in caste hierarchy and humiliation.
"The admitted existence of an eight-year consensual relationship negates any inference of non-consent or caste-based animus necessary to attract Section 3(1)(w)."
The Court emphasized that Section 3(1)(w) cannot be stretched to cover private disputes disguised as atrocities. The Sessions Court’s observation that the provision was not prima facie attracted was legally sound. The Court further held that the appellant’s apprehension of arrest, given the lack of credible evidence of non-consent or caste-based motive, warranted immediate interim protection.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court granted interim bail, directing that if arrested, he be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety. The Court affirmed that Section 3(1)(w) requires more than mere sexual contact - it demands proof of non-consent and caste-based hostility, neither of which were prima facie established.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Undermines Atrocity Allegations
- Practitioners must challenge the invocation of Section 3(1)(w) where the complainant admits to a prior consensual relationship.
- Courts must scrutinize whether the allegation is rooted in caste hierarchy or personal grievance.
- Merely alleging sexual contact between two members of Scheduled Castes/Tribes is insufficient to trigger the Act.
Prima Facie Standard Is Not Merely Formal
- The burden to establish a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act remains with the prosecution.
- Courts must not grant automatic arrest or deny bail based on the mere registration of an FIR under the Act.
- Admissions by the complainant that contradict the nature of the alleged offence must be given decisive weight.
Bail Is Not a Privilege But a Right in Absence of Prima Facie Case
- Interim bail under Section 482 CrPC is available even before formal arrest if the allegations are inherently implausible.
- The Court’s direction for bail before trial reinforces that protection from arbitrary arrest is a constitutional safeguard under Article 21.
- Lawyers should routinely seek interim protection in SC/ST cases where the complainant’s own statements undermine the prosecution’s theory.
