The Supreme Court held that there can be no mechanical denial of anticipatory bail merely on the ground of invoking offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stressing that the courts must carefully examine the facts and allegations in each case before denying relief.
A bench of Justices JP Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan said the statutory prohibition under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act cannot be applied in a routine or automatic manner and the nature of the allegations made in the FIR as well as the supporting material on record must be examined.
“Regarding the prohibition of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, we can only say that it will all depend on the facts of each case. It will also depend on the nature of the allegations made in the FIR and other materials on record. Section 18 of the Atrocities Act should not be applied mechanically,” the bench noted in its order issued last week.
This is likely to be important in cases where allegations under the Atrocities Act are coupled with offenses under general criminal law, particularly in disputes arising out of personal relationships, where courts are often required to determine whether components of caste-based offenses have been prima facie established before the accused is deprived of liberty.
Read also: Expanding judicial review into matters of faith of concern: SC
The ruling came as the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal arising out of the Gujarat High Court’s March 2026 order denying pre-arrest bail to a man accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act and provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The prosecution case arose out of allegations by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste community that the accused entered into a relationship with her on the promise of marriage, had physical relations and later reneged on them. The FIR also alleged that despite knowing her caste identity, he asked her to hide it.
While denying anticipatory bail, the Gujarat High Court observed that while the allegations under the SC/ST Act may not prima facie indicate that the relationship failed solely because of caste, the charges under Section 69 of the BNS appear serious enough to deny discretionary relief.
The Supreme Court also found that the defendant’s defense that he lacked the financial resources necessary to marry the complainant was unconvincing, especially since the records showed that he had recently obtained a job.
It also ignored the defendant’s claim that he had called the police complaining of threats from the complainant, observing that her statement about filing a police complaint could not be treated as criminal intimidation and that her alleged threats to commit suicide appeared to be “the reaction of a frustrated lover and nothing more.”
However, the Supreme Court, while hearing the challenge to the Supreme Court order, emphasized that the prohibition under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not completely exclude judicial scrutiny and that the courts are duty-bound to assess whether the allegations truly attract the rigor of the law.
This provision prohibits anticipatory bail for crimes under this law, and is often invoked to oppose pre-arrest protection for accused persons. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held in previous rulings that courts can examine whether a prima facie case under the law has actually been raised before denying relief.
Reinforcing this position, the bench stressed that application of Section 18 should be guided by the specific factual matrix of each case rather than the blanket assumption that anticipatory bail is not permissible when the SC/ST Act is cited in the FIR.
