SC/ST Act & Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling Explained

On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that anticipatory bail is barred in absolute terms under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This means that a person accused of offences under this law cannot ordinarily seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC.

However, the Court added a crucial exception:

If the FIR itself shows that no prima facie case is made out, and the allegations are baseless on the face of it, the court may still exercise discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

Why did the Court say anticipatory bail is barred?

The charges included several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, 1989.

The bench of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria stressed that Parliament intentionally created this bar to protect vulnerable SC/ST communities.

• The legislative intent was to ensure victims of caste-based atrocities are not intimidated or harassed.

• Earlier rulings: State of M.P. vs. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), Kartar Singh (1994), and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020),had already upheld that anticipatory bail is not a fundamental right but a statutory one.

The instant case titled Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr came from Maharashtra.

• The complainant alleged she and her family were assaulted, abused with casteist slurs, and threatened for not voting for a particular candidate in the 2024 Assembly elections.

• FIR included charges under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST Act, 1989.

• Despite this, the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail in April 2025, which the SC has now set aside, calling it a “manifest error”.

“The anticipatory bail granted by overlooking and disregarding the bar of Section 18 of the Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by the High Court. The order could not be sustained in the eye of law,” the bench declared.

By setting aside the High Court order, the Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not available where the FIR itself discloses caste-based atrocity offences. The only exception is where the FIR, on its very face, does not make out a case under the Act.

The judges emphasized that the “non-making” of a prima facie case must be apparent on the face of the FIR. Courts can arrive at such a conclusion at the very first reading, or through a “first blush” assessment of the allegations. However, in doing so, the bench warned that courts cannot undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence, hold a mini trial, or weigh witness testimony at the anticipatory bail stage.

The Court described Section 18 as seemingly strict, but underlined that it furthers the constitutional goal of ensuring equality and dignity for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The court provide a narrow safeguard against misuse. By carving out an exception where no prima facie case exists, the Court pointed out the need for victim protection with the rights of accused persons against frivolous or malicious FIRs.

Case Title: Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr

Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria