The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that the bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act applies only when a "prima facie" case is made out, emphasizing that the offense must stem directly from the victim's caste identity.

Supreme Court while setting aside the Impugned Judgement of the High Court has allowed bail to be granted to the Appellant in the event of arrest as the bar u/s 18 for grant of bail under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies only when a prima facie case is made against the accused. The Court has further held that “mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989” and such humiliation or intention must be inextricably linked to the caste of the person.

The case arose due to allegations levelled against the appellant herein for publishing a video on YouTube, containing a slew of reckless, defamatory statements against the defacto complainant who happens to be from the SC, ST community.

The Court has observed that given the derogatory nature of the statements, the appellant may have prima facie committed defamation under Section 500 IPC, but the complainant cannot invoke the Act, 1989 solely based on caste identity unless the actions are shown to be motivated by the complainant's caste.

The Court has emphasised the precedence laid in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India which states that Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act, 1989 do not prevent granting pre-arrest bail if the complaint fails to establish a prima facie case for the Act's applicability. The Court has also cited Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others wherein, the issue of applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC to cases registered under the Act, was held that although Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 bars the use of Section 438 of the CrPC, and that courts must assess whether a prima facie offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out. When considering anticipatory bail, courts should not engage in detailed evidentiary inquiries.

In answering the question whether the Sec. 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does impose an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act unless a prima facies case is carved out. The Court has stated that the very objective of the formulation of the Act, 1989 is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While Sec 438 of CrPC provides for Anticipatory Bail, Sec. 18 of the 1989, Act bars the remedy of anticipatory bail.

The Bench has highlighted the significance of the expression “arrest of any person” appearing in Section 18 of the Act, 1989 by stating that “We have deliberated on the significance of the expression “arrest of any person” appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 and are of the view that Section 18 bars the remedy of anticipatory bail only in those cases where a valid arrest of the accused person can be made as per Section 41 read with Section 60A of CrPC.”

The Court emphasized that these terms—'reasonable,' 'credible,' and 'reason to believe'—are critical in justifying an arrest. While Sec. 60A of the CrPC mandates that arrests must comply with CrPC provisions or other applicable laws, Sec. 41 empowers police to arrest without a warrant if there is reasonable complaint, credible information, or reasonable suspicion, and if the officer has a reason to believe the offence was committed.

The Court has stated that the power to arrest must meet two-fold criteria namely, – “first, of having a reasonable belief that the accused person has committed the offence and secondly, that there is a need to arrest the accused person”. The Court has urged that the term "arrest" in Section 18 of the Act, 1989, should be viewed within the broader context of police powers and statutory restrictions. The bar u/s 18 applies only when prima facie evidence indicates an offence under the Act, as this is necessary to meet the pre-arrest requirements of Sec. 41 of the CrPC.

While holding the view that “The duty to determine prima facie existence of the case is cast upon the courts with a view to ensure that no unnecessary humiliation is caused to the accused” the Bench has stated that if a complaint or FIR doesn't prima facie establish an offence under the Act, 1989, the bar of Section 18 won't prevent courts from granting anticipatory bail. However, if a prima facie case exists, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is unavailable, though claims of malicious prosecution due to vendetta can be considered by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution.

Adjudicating whether there is a prima facie case against the Appellant the Court has been of the view that an offence under the SC, ST Act, 1989 requires that the insult or intimidation be specifically based on the victim's Scheduled Caste or Tribe status, which is not evident in this case, as the appellant's actions seem motivated by personal animosity rather than the complainant's caste. The Court has interpreted the phrase “with intent to humiliate” as ingrained u/s 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act, to mean that such insult or intimidation is closely linked to the caste of the person.

The Court examined the question of law:

Whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989? And in concluding the Supreme Court held the “Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed earlier, the offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Case Details: Criminal Appeal No. 2622 Of 2024
Between: Shajan Skaria V. The State Of Kerala & Anr.
DOJ: 23.08.2024