The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that when an FIR makes out a prima facie case with specific allegations that an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) has been committed in public view, the absolute bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act stands triggered.
The Court explained that this bar excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), thereby preventing the grant of pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail. Defences that require appreciation of evidence, such as alibi or the falsehood of the complaint, are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated upon at the pre-arrest bail stage.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade observed that the FIR contains specific allegations of caste-based abuses hurled by the appellants against the informant. Crucially, the Bench noted that the alleged incident of abusing the informant on her caste occurred in front of her house, which constitutes “public view”.
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886], which establishes that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates an absolute bar against granting anticipatory bail where a specific accusation of an offence under the Act is made.
The Bench thus, explicitly stated that the defence of the appellants, including the alibi of hospitalization and the existence of a counter-FIR, cannot be considered at the initial stage of deciding an anticipatory bail application. The primary consideration at this stage is whether a prima facie case of an offence under the SC/ST Act, committed in public view, is made out from the FIR.
Briefly, the informant, respondent No. 3, belongs to the “Hindu Mahar” community, a recognised Scheduled Caste, and is in an inter-caste marriage with a person from the Hindu Maratha caste. On a fateful day, 24 individuals, including the appellants (accused Nos. 1, 7, and 18), arrived at her residence in 3-4 vehicles. The Appellants allegedly abused her on her caste, stating, “As to why Mahar caste person entered in the house of Maratha”. He is also accused of tearing her dress, outraging her modesty, and kicking her in the stomach. This incident occurred in front of her house, within public view.
Consequently, a crime was registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 354-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), and the Maharashtra Police Act.
Appearances:
Advocate R. R. Karpe, for the Appellant
APP R. D. Raut and Advocate A. D. Ostwal, for the Respondent
