The Bombay High Court has clarified that the absolute bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not apply when the FIR fails to disclose a prima facie case of caste-based atrocity. This ruling reinforces that procedural safeguards under Section 438 CrPC remain available where the allegations, even if serious, lack the essential element of caste-based animus.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants - Raju Rathod, Anil Rathod, and Bhau Rathod - were named as accused in Crime No. 420 of 2020, registered at Georai Police Station, District Beed, following an incident on 18.09.2020. The complainant, Santosh Bhosale, a member of the Pardhi community, a Scheduled Tribe, alleged that his five-year-old son, Umesh, was stoned by Shiva Sitaram Rathod while returning from a shop. This triggered a violent mob attack by approximately 24 individuals, including the appellants, who allegedly assaulted members of the Pardhi community, damaged property, and vandalized homes.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 18.09.2020 at approximately 8:00 p.m. in Pardhi Vasti, Khandavi, Georai
- The complainant’s son was stoned by Shiva Sitaram Rathod, prompting the mother, Smt. Darabai Mohan Bhosale, to confront the accused
- The mob, armed with sticks and axes, attacked men, women, and children of the Pardhi community
- Specific injuries reported: Smt. Darabai Mohan Bhosale fell unconscious; Smt. Kajal Mentab Bhosale was assaulted on her thigh; Smt. Rukminibai sustained a head injury
- Property damage included destruction of household articles, damage to a motorcycle, and roof vandalism
- The accused belong to the Banjara community; the victims belong to the Pardhi community, a Scheduled Tribe
- The FIR does not contain any allegation that the accused used caste-based slurs, abused the victims on account of their tribe, or acted with intent to insult their caste
- The complainant did not state that the assault was motivated by caste hatred or that the victims were targeted because of their Scheduled Tribe status
Procedural History
- 18.09.2020: Incident occurred in Pardhi Vasti, Georai
- 19.09.2020: FIR No. 420 of 2020 registered at Georai Police Station under Sections 324, 323, 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 and 427 IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act
- 04.12.2020: Eight co-accused (Bhau Chavan, Sudam Chavan, Avesh Chavan, Ankush Chavan, Sanjay Chavan, Pralhad @ Palya Chavan, Sunil Chavan, Deu Chavan) granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 620, 585, and 553 of 2020
- 04.02.2021: Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, rejected appellants’ anticipatory bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 54 of 2021), holding that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act
- 04.03.2021: Bombay High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to appellants pending final hearing
- 17.03.2026: Judgment reserved
- 23.03.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
- Argued that the FIR contains no allegation of caste-based abuse, humiliation, or insult
- Emphasized that the motive was a personal dispute over the stoning of a child, not caste animus
- Highlighted that eight co-accused, similarly situated and named in the same FIR, had already been granted anticipatory bail
- Relied on the principle of parity and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain
For the Respondent State
- Contended that the attack occurred in a Scheduled Tribe locality, involved destruction of property, and targeted women and children
- Argued that the SC/ST Act applies whenever a member of a Scheduled Tribe is assaulted in a group attack, regardless of explicit caste language
- Relied on Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain to assert that Section 18 creates an absolute bar to anticipatory bail for offences under the SC/ST Act
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the order dated 04.02.2021 rejecting anticipatory bail and direct grant of anticipatory bail on the same terms as the co-accused.
The Legal Issue
Can anticipatory bail be denied under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 when the FIR, on its face, does not disclose a prima facie case of an offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), or 3(2)(va) due to absence of caste-based abuse or intent?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants’ counsel argued that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail only when a prima facie case under Section 3 is established. The Supreme Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain held that the bar is not absolute if the allegations in the FIR are devoid of merit. Here, the FIR does not allege caste-based humiliation, verbal abuse, or intent to insult the victims because of their tribe. The attack, though violent, appears rooted in a personal dispute over the stoning of a child. The appellants were not singled out for any distinct role, and co-accused with identical allegations had already been granted bail. The principle of parity, coupled with the absence of caste-based intent, entitles them to anticipatory bail.
For the Respondent
The State and the respondent’s counsel contended that any assault on a Scheduled Tribe member in a group attack within their habitation, especially involving destruction of property and injury to women and children, automatically attracts the SC/ST Act. They argued that the location (Pardhi Vasti), the identity of victims, and the scale of violence are sufficient to invoke Section 3(1)(r) (assaulting with intent to humiliate) and Section 3(1)(s) (intentionally insulting with intent to humiliate). They maintained that the bar under Section 18 is absolute and that the Court cannot look beyond the FIR to assess motive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the FIR and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain. It emphasized that Section 18 does not create an irrevocable bar to anticipatory bail if the allegations under the SC/ST Act are not made out on the face of the FIR. The Court observed:
"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 noted that while the incident involved serious violence, the FIR contains no allegation that the accused used caste-based slurs, shouted caste-based abuses, or acted with the intent to insult the victims because of their Scheduled Tribe status. The motive, as per the complainant’s own account, was the stoning of his child - a personal grievance. The Court held that Section 3(1)(r) requires intentional humiliation on account of caste, and Section 3(1)(s) requires intentional insult to a Scheduled Tribe member. Neither was pleaded.
The Court further observed that the prosecution had not distinguished the appellants’ role from that of the eight co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of any material to show a distinct or aggravated role, the principle of parity demanded equal treatment. The Court concluded that the Special Judge erred in rejecting bail solely on the basis of the SC/ST Act’s applicability without first determining whether a prima facie case under Section 3 was made out.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The order dated 04.02.2021 rejecting anticipatory bail was quashed. The appellants, already on interim anticipatory bail since 04.03.2021 on execution of personal and surety bonds of Rs. 15,000 each, were granted regular anticipatory bail for the duration of the trial. They were directed not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The interim conditions were confirmed and extended.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Caste-Based Intent Is Essential
- Practitioners must scrutinize the FIR for explicit allegations of caste-based abuse, humiliation, or insult to invoke the SC/ST Act
- Absence of such language - even in violent attacks - means Section 18 does not automatically bar anticipatory bail
- Courts must not presume caste animus from location or victim identity alone
Parity in Bail Grants Is Binding
- Where co-accused with identical allegations and roles are granted anticipatory bail, denial to others without distinction violates Article 14
- Prosecution must articulate specific, material differences in role or conduct to justify differential treatment
- Failure to do so renders bail denial arbitrary
Section 18 Is Not an Absolute Bar
- The bar under Section 18 applies only when the FIR, on its face, discloses a prima facie case under Section 3
- Courts may examine the averments in the FIR to determine whether the essential ingredients of the offence are present
- This judgment reinforces that procedural justice under Section 438 CrPC remains available where the substantive case under the SC/ST Act is not established
