Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case

“No Prima Facie Case of Abuse in Public View – Delay of Nearly Two Years Raises Serious Doubts” – In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Karnataka High Court allowed an anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of caste-based abuse and assault, holding that “the bar on anticipatory bail is not absolute” and must be tested against the existence of prima facie material.

High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s rejection of anticipatory bail, finding that the complaint—lodged nearly two years after the alleged incidents—failed to disclose any clear, immediate, or publicly witnessed caste-based abuse sufficient to invoke the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

Justice G. Basavaraja, after a thorough examination of the FIR and delay, ruled:

“A perusal of the complaint, at this stage, reveals that there is no prima facie material to show that the accused has abused the complainant in public view. Hence, there is no bar to grant anticipatory bail as sought for.”

Allegations Stemmed from Financial Dispute – Caste Angle Suspected to Be Added Later

The case arose from a complaint filed by one Smt. Hemamalini K., alleging that the accused had harassed and assaulted her between April 2021 and September 2025, and had also abused her using caste-based slurs. An FIR was registered under Sections 109, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The defence argued that the FIR was motivated by a personal and financial dispute, and pointed out a striking delay in filing the complaint—nearly two years after the first alleged incident.

Counsel for the appellant submitted:

“The complainant and appellant were known to each other since 2020 through a matrimonial website. The financial transaction is purely civil in nature. The appellant had already repaid the entire amount. The complaint was lodged only after the relationship soured.”

The Court found merit in this argument, noting that the complaint did not explain the abnormal delay, nor did it contain any contemporaneous material such as medical records or prior police complaints, despite the serious nature of the allegations.

CCTV Footage Allegedly Showed Assault — But Vehicle Didn’t Belong to Accused

One of the most contested claims in the FIR was that on 18th September 2025, a car allegedly driven by the appellant had struck the complainant. CCTV footage showed a collision, but the defence demonstrated that the vehicle (KA-02-MK-1772) did not belong to the appellant, and that he did not even drive.

Further, the Court recorded: “It is submitted by learned counsel that the victim has not sustained any injuries, and the prosecution has not placed any medical evidence. Even after 60 days from registration of FIR, the Investigating Officer has failed to file the final report, violating Rule 7(2) of the SC/ST Rules.”

Thus, the Court held that the caste-based provisions could not be invoked in a mechanical manner, especially where basic procedural duties were unfulfilled by the prosecution.

Section 18 of SC/ST Act Not an Absolute Bar – Prima Facie Test Essential

Reiterating settled legal principles, Justice Basavaraja applied the "prima facie test" to assess whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted. The provision bars anticipatory bail only where the accusation reveals a cognizable offence under the Act, particularly involving public abuse based on caste.

The Court noted:

“The complaint does not reveal public view or intentional caste-based insult. Mere assertion of caste is not sufficient unless the allegation is of public insult with specific intent to humiliate.”

This aligns with Supreme Court precedent that mere invocation of SC/ST Act sections is not sufficient to deny pre-arrest bail—prima facie evidence must be shown.

Anticipatory Bail Granted With Conditions

Allowing the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Court set aside the Sessions Court’s rejection of bail dated 29.10.2025 in Crl.Misc. No. 9057/2025, and granted the following relief:

“The appellant shall be released on bail upon executing a self-bond for Rs.50,000 with one surety of like sum. He shall cooperate with the investigation, not tamper with witnesses, and shall not commit a similar offence.”

The order also directed that if a charge sheet is filed, the trial court must enlarge the appellant on bail, subject to the same conditions.

Allegations Under SC/ST Act Must Be Scrutinized, Not Presumed

This judgment affirms the delicate balance between victim protection and false implication safeguards under the SC/ST Act. While the law rightly provides stringent provisions against caste-based atrocities, courts must still insist on prima facie evidence before invoking Section 18’s exclusion of anticipatory bail.

Where delay is unexplained, injuries are absent, and public insult is not evident, blanket denial of bail is not justified—as the Karnataka High Court’s ruling makes clear.

Date of Decision: 04 December 2025