When No Prima Facie Offence Under SC/ST Act Is Made Out, High Court Alone Has Jurisdiction to Entertain Anticipatory Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Jurisdiction of Special Courts Under the SC/ST Act Is Triggered Only When a Prima Facie Case Is Made Out; In Its Absence, High Court Retains Original Powers Under Section 438 CrPC”—AP High Court Resolves Crucial Conflict

In a landmark ruling a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V. Sujatha, definitively settled a long-standing legal controversy surrounding the forum for seeking anticipatory bail in cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when no prima facie offence under the Act is made out. The Court held that in such cases, the High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of BNSS), and not the Special or Exclusive Special Courts constituted under the SC/ST Act.

This ruling comes in the context of Criminal Petitions wherein conflicting judgments of coordinate benches had created confusion over whether anticipatory bail could be sought directly before the High Court in SC/ST Act cases where the allegations did not attract provisions of the Act.

“Special Court Cannot Entertain Anticipatory Bail Application Where No Prima Facie Offence Under SC/ST Act Is Made Out”: High Court Clarifies Statutory Limits

Resolving a reference made by a Single Judge of the Court, the Bench ruled unequivocally:

“The Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, constituted under the SC/ST Act, acquires jurisdiction only when a prima facie case is made out against the accused. In its absence, those courts are ousted of jurisdiction concerning anticipatory bail applications.”

The Court emphasized that merely because the FIR mentions offences under the SC/ST Act, the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A does not automatically apply. The bar on anticipatory bail arises only when the complaint on its face discloses the essential ingredients of an offence under the Act.

The judgment further noted: “When prima facie case is not made out, filing an application before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court would be a futile exercise. In such circumstances, the accused can invoke Section 438 of the Code [now Section 482 of BNSS, 2023] before the High Court.”

“Dismissal of SLP Without Reasons Is Not Binding Precedent”: Court Rejects Argument Based on Apex Court’s Summary Order

A significant argument advanced by the State was based on the Supreme Court’s summary dismissal of SLPs on January 31, 2025, where the apex court observed that accused may approach the Special Court for anticipatory bail. The State argued that this reflects the intended forum.

The High Court decisively rejected this, holding that summary dismissal without reasons is not binding as precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Quoting the Supreme Court’s own precedents in Elephanta Oil, Arnit Das, and NBCC, the Bench observed:

“A decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and not proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared… This is the rule of sub silentio.”

Thus, the Court found no binding force in the SLP dismissal relied upon by the prosecution and reiterated the authority of the binding constitutional precedents.

“High Court Retains Both Original and Appellate Jurisdiction — Statutory Design Supports Concurrent Powers”: Bench Interprets Section 14A in Harmony with Section 438

The State had also contended that the High Court loses original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC in light of Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, which provides for appellate jurisdiction.

Rejecting this, the Division Bench held:

“The High Court retains its concurrent and original jurisdiction under Section 438 of the CrPC [now Section 482 of BNSS, 2023] and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act.”

The Bench reasoned that there is no legislative bar preventing the High Court from exercising its original jurisdiction, especially where Special Courts are themselves barred from granting bail in absence of a prima facie SC/ST offence.

This interpretation ensures that accused persons are not left remediless, preserving the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

“Prima Facie Offence Must Be Judicially Determined Before Bar Under Section 18 Is Attracted”: Citing Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria, Court Affirms Supreme Court View

Citing the authoritative Supreme Court rulings in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [(2020) 4 SCC 727] and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249], the Bench reiterated that bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act applies only when a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out.

The Court quoted from Shajan Skaria: “If the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under the Act are not disclosed upon prima facie reading of the complaint, the bar of Section 18 would not apply… The courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the FIR in fact discloses the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Act.”

It added that malicious prosecution on account of political or private vendetta can also be addressed only by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

“Special Courts Are Statutorily Limited to Trying Offences Under the Act — No Jurisdiction in Absence of Such Offence”: Court Interprets Act’s Structural Logic

The Bench also conducted a statutory interpretation of Sections 2(bd), 2(d), and 14 of the SC/ST Act and held:

“A combined reading… entrenches the view that the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, constituted under the said Act, will acquire jurisdiction only when the prima facie case is made out.”

It further stated:

“Special Courts are created to try offences under the Act — not to exercise anticipatory bail jurisdiction in cases where no such offence is made out. Otherwise, it results in a procedural absurdity.”

Thus, the forum for anticipatory bail in such cases lies only before the High Court.

Reference Answered: High Court Is the Correct Forum for Anticipatory Bail Where No Prima Facie SC/ST Offence Exists

In conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court answered the reference as follows:

“In the event a prima facie case is not made out, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable before the High Court only and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act. The High Court retains both concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC [now Section 482 BNSS] and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act.”

This authoritative clarification resolves judicial confusion that had caused procedural anomalies and forum-shopping in cases involving serious allegations under the SC/ST Act. The ruling underscores that where liberty is at stake, jurisdiction must align with the real substance of the allegations, not the form of the FIR.

Date of Decision: September 19, 2025