Anticipatory bail maintainable if FIR lacks specific averment regarding victim’s SC/ST status.

The appellant, Arvind Kumar, was accused in Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 248 of 2023 for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly that assaulted victims and used vulgar, caste-based language against the informant.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh, rejected the appellant’s anticipatory bail application on 07.11.2025, citing the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant challenged this rejection, contending that the FIR failed to mention the victim’s caste and that the parties had since reached a compromise.

1. Whether an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is made out if the First Information Report (FIR) lacks averments regarding the victim's caste or tribal status

2. Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies in the absence of a prima facie case, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail

Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which bars the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail) for offences committed under the Act.

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, which necessitate that the victim be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the offence of caste-based insult or intimidation to be established.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act regarding appeals against bail orders.

The High Court observed that for an offence to be registered under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, there must be a specific averment in the FIR that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Upon reviewing the record, the court found "absolutely no averment" to this effect in the FIR.

Consequently, the court held that the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not satisfied, rendering the bar under Section 18 inapplicable.

The court also took judicial notice of a joint compromise petition filed by the appellant and the informant, noting that they had resolved their dispute and restored their relationship.

The court concluded that the Special Judge committed a legal error by rejecting the bail application solely on the gravity of the offence without verifying the prima facie applicability of the Act.

The appellant was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, with the direction that in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, he be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions that the appellant cooperates with the investigation, provides his mobile number and Aadhaar photocopy, and undertakes not to change his mobile number during the pendency of the case.