The Punjab & Haryana 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 allegations fail to establish a prima facie case under the Act. This ruling reinforces judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail where caste-based elements are absent or artificially inserted.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ram Niwas, was named as an accused in FIR No. 190 dated 26.08.2024, registered at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal, under Sections 115, 118(1), 190, 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and later, Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, assaulted the complainant using fists, kicks, a wooden stick, sharp weapons, and bricks, causing multiple injuries.
Key Facts
- The alleged occurrence took place on 24.08.2024
- The FIR was registered on 26.08.2024, two days after the incident
- The complainant was admitted to hospital on 24.08.2024 but discharged against medical advice on the same day
- The complainant’s statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded on 26.08.2024, two days after the incident and after discharge
- No caste-based derogatory language was attributed to the petitioner in the FIR or any witness statement
- Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was added to the FIR retrospectively, after its initial registration
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record and is not implicated in any other case
- Co-accused were granted regular bail by this Court on 11.03.2026 in CRA-S-649-2026
Procedural History
- 24.08.2024: Alleged assault occurs
- 26.08.2024: FIR registered under BNS provisions only; SC/ST Act not invoked
- 26.08.2024: Complainant discharged from hospital against medical advice
- 26.08.2024: Complainant’s statement recorded
- 16.03.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissed petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail
- 30.04.2026: Petitioner filed present appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 16.03.2026, grant of anticipatory bail, and declaration that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted due to absence of caste-based allegations and retrospective insertion of the provision.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the absolute bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, precluding anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, applies when the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie attract the ingredients of the Act, particularly where caste-based language is absent and the provision is added retrospectively.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was initially registered without any reference to the SC/ST Act and that Section 3(2)(va) was inserted later with no factual basis. He emphasized that no caste-based slur was uttered by the petitioner, the complainant left hospital on the day of incident, and the two-day delay in FIR registration cast doubt on the prosecution’s version. He relied on Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain to argue that where no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out, the bar under Section 18 is not absolute and anticipatory bail may be granted.
For the Respondent
The State counsel opposed bail, contending that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates an absolute bar against anticipatory bail and that the seriousness of the alleged assault warranted denial of bail. However, he conceded that the SC/ST Act was not initially invoked and could not rebut the absence of caste-based allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the FIR was initially registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alone and that Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was added subsequently without any supporting allegation of caste-based animus. The complainant’s discharge against medical advice on the day of incident and delayed statement recording raised serious questions about the veracity of the prosecution narrative.
"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."
The Court emphasized that the determination of a prima facie case must be based solely on the contents of the FIR and not on evidentiary evaluation or mini-trial. The absence of any allegation of caste-based insult or derogatory language rendered the invocation of the SC/ST Act legally unsustainable. The Court distinguished the present case from those where caste-based hostility is explicitly pleaded, noting that the retrospective addition of the provision was an attempt to invoke a stricter statutory regime without factual foundation.
The Court further noted that the co-accused had already been granted regular bail, and the petitioner had no antecedents, reinforcing the balance of convenience and likelihood of abuse of process.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The order dated 16.03.2026 dismissing the anticipatory bail application was set aside. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer, and subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS. The Court clarified that nothing in the order constitutes an opinion on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Caste Allegation Is Mandatory for SC/ST Act Invocation
- Practitioners must scrutinize FIRs for explicit caste-based language before invoking the SC/ST Act
- Retrospective addition of SC/ST provisions without factual basis is legally unsustainable
- Courts may reject SC/ST Act applicability at the bail stage if the allegations lack prima facie caste-based intent
Anticipatory Bail Not Barred by Section 18 Where No Prima Facie Case Exists
- Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not an absolute bar; Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain permits judicial discretion where the offence is not prima facie made out
- Courts may grant anticipatory bail even under the SC/ST Act if the FIR, on its face, fails to disclose elements of the offence
- Delay in FIR registration, inconsistent medical records, and absence of caste-based language are material factors for bail consideration
Procedural Irregularities Undermine Prosecution Credibility
- Unexplained delays in FIR registration must be raised at the bail stage as indicators of fabrication
- Discharge against medical advice and delayed statement recording are admissible grounds to question prosecution narrative
- Courts will not permit the SC/ST Act to be weaponized against accused without genuine caste-based allegations
