The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases related to offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if a prima facie case is not made out.
It, however, set aside the anticipatory bail granted by Bombay High Court to Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, accused of hurling caste abuses at a Scheduled Caste person for voting against his party in an undisclosed election.
The Supreme Court passed the order while interpreting the provisions of the SC-ST Act in the light of Section 18 of the legislation. which puts an express bar on anticipatory bail normally available to an accused in a criminal case under CrPC Section 438, and various judgments passed by the top court on the question of anticipatory bail in matters relating to offences under the SC-ST Act.
“In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, CrPC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.
“The absolute nature of the bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. 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,” a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria said in a judgment.
“Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon the very reading of the averments in the FIR.
“The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. In reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the court could advert to conduct a mini-trial,” Justice Anjaria, who authored the judgment, observed.
However, in the present case, the court noted
that there was sufficient
prima facie material to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to Jain.
“The allegations made in the FIR lodged by the complainant were that he was addressed by the accused with abusive casteist utterance, ‘Mangatyano, you are very arrogant, you are staying in the village and voting against’. The appellant was addressed as above by the accused
outside the house of the appellant, where others were present.
“The accused persons beat the complainant with an iron rod and threatened to burn the house. The mother and aunt of the appellant-complainant were also meted out similar treatment with intimidation and were addressed with the same casteist slur.
“The use of the word ‘Mangatyano’ was with a clear intention to humiliate the complainant because he belonged to the said Scheduled Caste community. In the said abusive utterances and conduct by the accused, the caste nexus was established,” the court said.
It said that the complainant was humiliated with casteist and abusive language for the reason that he did not vote in favour of a particular candidate, “one bahubali-accused No. 8 in the Assembly election, as desired by the respondent accused”.
The apex court passed the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by the victim, Kiran, challenging a Bombay High Court order granting bail to the accused, which was earlier rejected by the additional sessions court.
The bench noted that the incident took place outside the house of the complainant, a place within public view, inviting the rigours of the Act.