Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., 2025
The Court reiterated the settled principle that anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act is barred unless the allegations clearly do not constitute an offence under the Act.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
3 September 2025
Judges
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai ⦁ Justice K. Vinod Chandran ⦁ Justice N.V. Anjaria
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The complainant (appellant) was allegedly abused and humiliated in public by the accused, who referred to him using casteist slurs, specifically calling him "Mangatyano".
-
The incident arose because the complainant did not vote for a certain candidate (accused no. 8) in the Assembly Elections.
-
The accused allegedly beat the complainant with an iron rod and threatened to burn his house.
-
Similar threats and abuse were extended to the complainant’s mother and aunt, establishing a clear caste nexus.
-
The Bombay High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, which was challenged by the complainant.
Issues
-
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the SC/ST Act when a prima facie case is made out?
-
Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail without properly appreciating the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act?
Held
- The grant of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act is impermissible unless it is clearly shown that no prima facie offence is made out.
- In this case, since a prima facie case existed, the High Court’s order was set aside.
Analysis
-
The Court reiterated the settled principle that anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act is barred unless the allegations clearly do not constitute an offence under the Act.
-
However, it clarified that courts cannot delve into evidence or conduct a mini-trial while deciding anticipatory bail — the averments in the FIR alone must guide the prima facie analysis.
-
The use of casteist slurs and physical assault, as alleged in the FIR, was deemed sufficient to establish a caste nexus, satisfying the requirements of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.
-
This decision reinforces the protective intent behind the SC/ST Act and aims to prevent dilution of safeguards through premature bail orders.