Facts: The four appellants, including a Grampanchayat member and her family, were accused of insulting and assaulting the informant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, at a public water tap on 12.11.2025. The informant alleged that Accused No. 1 and 2 used casteist slurs like "Chambharin" and "Cobbler", threatened her family to vacate their house, and physically assaulted her. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 25.11.2025, after a delay of thirteen days. The appellants contended that the case was a false counter-blast to an earlier non-cognizable (NC) report filed by Accused No. 1 against the informant. While the High Court initially granted ad-interim protection, a charge-sheet was subsequently filed during the pendency of the appeal.
Procedural Posture: The appellants approached the High Court under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They challenged the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Amalner, which had rejected their application for anticipatory bail.
Issue: Whether the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to all appellants, and whether a prima facie case of caste-based humiliation in public view was established against each of them to deny pre-arrest bail.
Holding: The appeal was partly allowed. The court dismissed the appeal for Accused Nos. 1 and 2, directing them to surrender. However, it allowed the appeal for Accused Nos. 3 and 4, granting them anticipatory bail.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates an absolute bar on anticipatory bail only when a prima facie case is established. Upon reviewing the FIR and witness statements, the Court found specific allegations of casteist abuses against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, uttered at a public tap in "public view", which attracted the provisions of the Act. Conversely, there were no specific allegations or evidence suggesting that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (the sons) used casteist language or participated in the humiliation. Following the precedent in "Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala", the Court held that mere presence or general allegations without the intent to humiliate on the basis of caste does not attract the statutory bar for those specific individuals.