Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because SC/ST Act Offence Not Made Out If Custodial Interrogation Is Necessary For Property Recovery: Bombay High Court

"Therefore, merely because the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(l) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not prima facie established, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 on anticipatory bail, particularly when their custodial interrogation is necessary for the purpose of investigation." Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), in an authoritative ruling delivered on October 7, 2026, held that an accused cannot be shielded with pre-arrest bail merely because the statutory bar under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is inapplicable, especially where custodial interrogation is indispensable to effect the recovery of misappropriated property.

Setting aside an order of the Sessions Court, Justice Y. G. Khobragade ruled that granting anticipatory bail while ignoring the imperative need for custodial interrogation severely impedes the investigating agency and renders the bail order perverse and unsustainable at its inception.

The applicant-informant approached the High Court under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to two accused persons by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the SC/ST Act, Nagpur. The prosecution arose from an FIR alleging that the informant had mortgaged 111.5 grams of gold ornaments with the accused to secure a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-, but despite full repayment of the principal and interest, the accused refused to return the gold, threatened the informant's husband, and hurled caste-based abuses. The Sessions Court had granted and confirmed pre-arrest bail on the ground that prima facie caste-based abuse in public view was not made out, thereby circumventing the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

The primary question before the court was whether anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court was liable to be cancelled on the ground that it ignored the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovering pledged ornaments. The court was also called upon to determine whether the mere non-establishment of a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act justifies the grant of pre-arrest protection when effective investigation is severely obstructed.

Distinction Between Post-Bail Misconduct And Annulment Of Perverse Bail Orders

Addressing the maintainability of the cancellation application, the High Court emphasized that an order granting bail does not enjoy absolute immunity from judicial review if it suffers from perversity. The bench noted that an application challenging bail on the ground that the original order ignored material facts stands on an entirely different footing from an application founded on subsequent violations of bail conditions.

Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, and Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane, the court observed that an appellate or superior court is fully entitled to annul an order granting bail if it reveals non-application of mind or reliance on irrelevant considerations, without having to wait for supervening post-bail misconduct.

Perversity In Ignoring Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation

The court scrutinised the record and found that the informant had produced documentary evidence, including bank transactions and a stamp paper agreement, demonstrating that 111.5 grams of gold jewellery had been mortgaged with the accused. The bench pointed out that the investigating officer had neither recovered the original loan agreement nor traced the 111.5 grams of gold ornaments, which remained in the possession of the accused.

Justice Khobragade held that the Sessions Court had completely overlooked the acute necessity of custodial interrogation for the recovery of the pledged jewellery and the original agreement. Citing Rajesh Tulsidas Nakhua v. Senior Inspector of Police, the bench highlighted that when valuable property has not been recovered and custodial interrogation is required, granting anticipatory bail cripples the investigation.

Non-Application Of SC/ST Act Not A Blanket Licence For Pre-Arrest Bail

The High Court took serious exception to the approach of the Special Judge, who confirmed anticipatory bail primarily because the FIR and complaint lacked allegations of caste-based abuse in public view, in terms of Prithwiraj Chauhan v. Union of India and Swaran Singh v. State. The court held that ruling out the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail on ordinary criminal charges.

The bench stressed that offences under Sections 296, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), alongside Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014, warranted serious probing. The court categorically ruled that the absence of a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(l) of the SC/ST Act cannot eclipse the investigator's statutory right to probe property offences through custodial custody.

"Consequently, the grant of anticipatory bail has caused an hurdle to the Investigating Officer in collecting the necessary evidence against non-applicant Nos.1 and 2, particularly in respect of the alleged agreement and the pledged gold ornaments."

Failure To Disclose Criminal Antecedents Versus Substantive Ground For Revocation

The High Court also dealt with the informant's argument regarding non-disclosure of previous criminal antecedents by the accused. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, the court observed that while four prior cases were registered against one of the accused, they were not of a grave nature, and mere non-disclosure of past antecedents by itself cannot form the sole ground for cancelling bail.

However, the court held that the overarching test laid down in Puran v. Rambilas and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar mandates cancellation where relevant material and evidence are ignored to pass a perverse order. Justice Khobragade observed that releasing the accused on pre-arrest bail had directly created an insurmountable barrier for the police to recover the misappropriated gold jewellery, making judicial intervention imperative to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Refusal To Stay Cancellation Order For Supreme Court Appeal

Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal application, quashed the Sessions Court's orders granting and confirming anticipatory bail, and ordered the forfeiture of bail bonds executed by the accused. The bench authorized the investigating officer to immediately take both accused into custody for custodial interrogation.

When counsel for the accused prayed for the order to be kept in abeyance for four weeks to approach the Supreme Court, the High Court firmly rejected the request. The bench noted that keeping the cancellation in abeyance would perpetuate the hurdle in the investigation and further delay the recovery of the mortgaged gold ornaments.

The Bombay High Court held that anticipatory bail is liable to be cancelled if the court below overlooks the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovering pledged property, even if the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act is prima facie inapplicable. By allowing the cancellation under Section 480 BNSS, the court reinforced that discretionary relief under pre-arrest bail cannot be used to throttle a criminal investigation or frustrate property recovery.

Date of Decision: October 7, 2026