Section 18 SC/ST Act | Anticipatory Bail Bar Applies When FIR Discloses Prima Facie Offence: Delhi High Court Dismiss Bail of Ajeet Bharti

"The bar in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would operate. In other words, in relation to any case involving arrest of a person who is facing the accusation about committing offence under this Act, protection of Section 438, Cr.P.C. would not be available." Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated September 24, 2026, held that the statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, remains absolute if a perusal of the FIR discloses a prima facie case.

Dismissing the anticipatory bail application of one Ajeet Bharti, a bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that courts cannot delve into evidentiary nuances or conduct a "mini-trial" at the pre-arrest stage. The court emphasized that if the ingredients of the offence are manifest from the complaint, the relief under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—the successor to Section 438 of the CrPC—is unavailable to the accused.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding an FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and other provisions of the SC/ST Act, alongside sections of the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR stemmed from an audio-visual social media post by the applicant, which allegedly contained caste-based slurs and derogatory remarks directed at a Member of Parliament belonging to the SC community, with the alleged intent to humiliate him and promote caste-based enmity.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act existed to trigger the bar under Section 18 and 18A(2) of the Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the "public view" requirement of the Act is satisfied when defamatory remarks are disseminated via digital platforms.

Applicability of Section 18 Bar

The court underscored that Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the SC/ST Act represent a legislative policy to exclude anticipatory bail in instances of caste-based atrocities. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala, the bench noted that this exclusion is rooted in the social necessity of protecting victims from intimidation. The bar on pre-arrest bail is not a blanket prohibition, but rather conditional upon the absence of a prima facie case.

Court Clarifies Prima Facie Test

The bench clarified that "prima facie" must be determined at the "first blush" or "first impression" of the FIR. If the allegations on their face satisfy the statutory ingredients of the SC/ST Act, the court is precluded from granting anticipatory bail. The court explicitly warned against travelling into the "evidentiary realm" to assess the strength of the evidence, as doing so would constitute an impermissible mini-trial.

Digital Dissemination and Public View

The court held that in the era of the internet, digital platforms constitute a "public view" within the meaning of the SC/ST Act. The court noted that because the video was accessible globally, the requirement for physical presence of the victim at the time of the insult is negated. The digital nature of the platform ensures that the disparaging remarks are freely available to a wide audience, thereby satisfying the ingredient of "public view."

Intent to Humiliate

Upon reviewing the transcript of the video, the court found that the applicant had used specific caste-based slurs while referring to the complainant. These remarks were not merely reckless comments but were linked to notions of caste superiority and hierarchies, particularly regarding marriage. The court observed that these statements were clearly designed to equate the complainant with caste-based indignities, falling squarely within the mischief of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

Court Explains Intent Requirement

The bench referred to the observation in Shajan Skaria that the words "with intent to humiliate" are "inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person." The court concluded that since the applicant’s remarks were not stray but directed at the complainant's caste identity, the intent to humiliate was evident. Consequently, the plea of provocation offered by the applicant was dismissed as irrelevant to the prima facie assessment.

Finding that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie satisfied, the court ruled that the statutory bar under Section 18 applied. The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, with the court clarifying that these observations are confined to the bail stage and shall not influence the merits of the trial.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026