The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applies where a prima facie case is made out under Section 3(2)(v), even when the accused claims a consensual relationship. The judgment underscores that caste-based awareness, coupled with a serious offence, triggers the statutory embargo regardless of personal dynamics between parties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ramanand Ranjan @ Ramanand Ranjan Mandal, a 26-year-old resident of Village Harbhanga, P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar, is accused of committing offences against a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The case arose from an alleged sexual relationship that ended when the appellant refused to marry the victim. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed, leading to the registration of Jama P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 under Sections 69, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Key Facts
- The victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste.
- The appellant and the victim were in a consensual relationship over a prolonged period.
- The relationship ended in late 2025 after the appellant refused to marry the victim.
- The victim filed a complaint alleging exploitation and sexual assault.
- The complaint specifically invoked Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which pertain to sexual exploitation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
- The alleged offence, if proven, is punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
- The victim’s caste status was known to the appellant, as both resided in the same village and community.
Procedural History
- 2025: Alleged incident occurred, leading to the filing of Jama P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025.
- 20.12.2025: The Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Dumka, rejected the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail (A.B.P. No. 519 of 2025).
- 13.05.2026: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 268 of 2026 filed before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that:
- The relationship with the victim was consensual and long-standing.
- The complaint was filed only after he refused to marry her, indicating malafide intent.
- No offence of rape or sexual assault under the BNS or SC/ST (PoA) Act was made out.
- The bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act should not apply where no prima facie offence exists.
- He undertook to cooperate fully with the trial.
For the Respondent / State
The State and the victim opposed the bail plea on the grounds that:
- The victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste.
- The alleged offence, if established, attracts punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
- Section 8 of the Act creates a presumption that the accused was aware of the victim’s caste identity, given personal knowledge.
- The presence of caste-based motive and the gravity of the offence trigger the absolute bar under Section 18.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, arguing that the conditions for invoking Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act were not satisfied.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies when the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more against a member of a Scheduled Caste, and there is material indicating the accused had knowledge of the victim’s caste identity.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on the principle that Section 18 is not an absolute bar if no prima facie offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is made out. He argued that consensual relationships, even if later terminated, cannot be converted into atrocities merely because one party belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He cited judicial precedents holding that the Act must not be misused to settle personal disputes. He emphasized that the absence of force, threat, or public humiliation negates the essential ingredients of an atrocity under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).
For the Respondent
The State and victim’s counsel contended that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act applies when a non-SC/ST person commits an offence under the IPC or BNS punishable with ten years or more against a member of a Scheduled Caste, provided the accused knew the victim’s identity. They invoked Section 8, which creates a rebuttable presumption of awareness of caste identity when the accused had personal knowledge of the victim. They argued that the very fact of a consensual relationship ending in a complaint after refusal to marry does not negate the caste-based exploitation alleged. The gravity of the offence and the statutory presumption together establish a prima facie case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 3(2)(v) and Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. It noted that while anticipatory bail is generally available under Section 438 CrPC, Section 18 explicitly bars its grant in cases under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, except where no prima facie case is made out.
"In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that - [(c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved. ]"
The Court held that the presumption under Section 8 is triggered here, as both parties resided in the same village and community, establishing personal knowledge. The alleged offence, if proven, attracts punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 3(2)(v), which is clearly an offence punishable with ten years or more.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that consensual relationships cannot constitute atrocities. It held that the nature of the relationship is irrelevant if the offence committed falls within the ambit of the Act and the accused had knowledge of the victim’s caste. The Court emphasized that the Act is a protective legislation designed to prevent exploitation rooted in caste hierarchy, and its provisions must be interpreted purposively.
The Court further observed that the burden to rebut the presumption under Section 8 lies with the accused, and no evidence was adduced to disprove awareness of caste identity. Therefore, a prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act was established, triggering the absolute bar under Section 18.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Jharkhand High Court upheld the order dated 20.12.2025 rejecting anticipatory bail. The appellant remains liable to face trial without the benefit of anticipatory bail. The Court confirmed that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act applies where a prima facie case is made out under Section 3(2)(v), and the presumption under Section 8 is not rebutted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caste Awareness Triggers Section 18 Bar
- Practitioners must now treat any allegation of sexual or violent offence against an SC/ST member as attracting Section 18 if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim’s identity.
- Consensual relationships do not automatically negate an atrocity charge under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
- The burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of awareness of caste identity - mere denial is insufficient.
Section 3(2)(v) Applies Broadly to Serious Offences
- Any offence under the BNS or IPC punishable with ten years or more (e.g., rape, grievous hurt, kidnapping) committed against an SC/ST member with caste awareness will trigger Section 3(2)(v).
- This includes offences previously treated as civil or personal disputes if caste is implicated.
- Legal teams must assess caste dynamics at the earliest stage of case evaluation.
Judicial Caution Against Misuse Is Not a License to Disregard the Act
- Courts will not entertain arguments seeking to dilute the SC/ST (PoA) Act on grounds of "personal vendetta" without concrete evidence of fabrication.
- The presumption under Section 8 is a powerful evidentiary tool - failure to rebut it will result in denial of bail.
- Lawyers must prepare for early evidentiary challenges on caste awareness, not just on the nature of the act.
