The Delhi High Court on October 28, 2025 rejected the accused’s plea for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of assault, humiliation and caste-based slurs against the complainant. Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that a prima facie offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989, which criminalises intentional caste-based insult, public humiliation and sexual harassment of an SC/ST person, was made out, which invoked Section 18 of the Act that bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
The case arose when the complainant, an Assistant Manager at Batra Hospital, alleged that the accused stopped her car on the Badarpur Flyover on 30.07.2025, broke her car window, dragged her out, assaulted and molested her, and used caste-based abusive remarks, threatening her not to report the incident. The FIR was registered at P.S. Badarpur against the accused for criminal intimidation, aggravated wrongful restraint, assault and voluntarily causing hurt with sexual intent under BNS 2023 and for intentional caste-based abuse, humiliation in public view, and sexual harassment of a woman belonging to the SC/ST community under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w-ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant, in her statement to the police, alleged that the accused stopped her car on the Badarpur Flyover, broke the window, dragged her out, assaulted and molested her and abused her by caste name.The accused argued that the complainant was in a consensual relationship with him, supported by WhatsApp chats, CDRs, photos, gifts and financial assistance provided by him, suggesting false implication due to a monetary dispute. He contended that essential ingredients under the SC/ST Act 1989 were not met particularly due to lack of knowledge of the complainant’s caste and absence of any independent public witness to prove “public view” and claimed cooperation with investigation and lack of need of custodial interrogation.The prosecution, however, opposed bail citing seriousness and social impact of caste-based offences, asserting the incident took place on a public road with a crowd gathered, injuries were confirmed, and that the statutory bar under Sections 18 & 18-A of the SC/ST Act 1989 applies when a prima facie case is shown. The complainant too disclosed an incident of stalking by the accused who also threatened her family members expressing fear of harassment, if the accused was granted anticipatory bail.
The Court reiterated that the SC/ST Act 1989 is a protective statute and the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 applies once a prima facie case is made out. It referred to Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795, Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 435, and Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr. 2025 INSC 1067, and clarified that courts cannot undertake detailed evidence appraisal at the bail stage and may consider anticipatory bail only where statutory ingredients are not satisfied.Therefore after applying the principles, the Court observed that the FIR specifically proves caste-based slurs to the petitioner, who admittedly does not belong to the SC/ST community, and the alleged incident occurred on a flyover clearly a place within public view and so the absence of independent witnesses does not negate the “public view” requirement. The Court also recorded that the complainant’s caste credentials were verified through certificates of her husband and father, and she furnished digital evidence including a pen drive containing a video of the incident. As a prima facie offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act stood established, custodial interrogation was found necessary, and the statutory bar under Section 18 was applied, making anticipatory bail impermissible.Accordingly, the application was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the observations are confined to adjudication at the bail stage and will not affect the merits of the case at trial.
Appearances:
For the Accused/Petitioner- Mr. K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Uditi Bali, Mr. Karmanya Singh Choudhary, Mr. Lavish Chandra, Ms. Yakshi Kataria, Ms. Savita Sethi, Mr. Mayank Arora, Ms. Shivani Varun, Mr. Mehul Anand, Advs.
For the Respondent- Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for the State with ACP Harish Chand, Insp. Sushil Kumar, PS Badarpur. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan, DHLSC, Adv. with Ms. Shivanshi Panwar, Adv. for the victim.
