ANTICIPATORY BILL IN CASTE CRIMES

Anticipatory bail is a legal provision in India that allows a person to seek protection from arrest in anticipation of being accused of a non-bailable offense. The idea is preventive—it does not wait until the police arrest the person, but instead provides relief beforehand.

This remedy is given under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. It is usually sought when someone believes that false charges might be framed against them or that they might be arrested out of malice or political rivalry. By obtaining anticipatory bail, the individual can avoid the trauma of police custody and still cooperate with the investigation.

When a court grants anticipatory bail, it essentially orders that if the police arrest the applicant, they must be released immediately on bail without being taken into custody. However, the court may impose conditions, such as requiring the person to cooperate with the investigation, not tamper with evidence, or not leave the country without permission.

The purpose of anticipatory bail is to protect personal liberty, prevent misuse of arrest powers, and strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of investigation. It is not meant to shield offenders from legitimate arrest, but to protect citizens from harassment and wrongful detention

3. Why is anticipatory bill is barred from SC/ST cases?

• Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is generally available in India, but the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) makes a specific exception. Section 18 of this Act clearly bars the use of anticipatory bail for offences registered under it. The reasoning lies in the very purpose of the law.
• The SC/ST Act was enacted to protect historically marginalized communities from caste-based atrocities, discrimination, and violence.
• Lawmakers were aware that in many cases, perpetrators of such crimes are from socially and economically dominant groups, while the victims belong to vulnerable sections. If anticipatory bail were freely available, it could dilute the deterrence of the law.
• It was feared that accused persons, especially those with influence, might obtain anticipatory bail quickly, intimidate victims, tamper with evidence, or misuse their position to escape justice.
• Therefore, the bar on anticipatory bail was seen as a way to give stronger protection to SCs and STs, ensuring that those accused of such offences face proper investigation and do not use legal loopholes to avoid accountability.
• That said, the issue has been debated in courts. In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018), the Supreme Court initially held that anticipatory bail could be allowed in cases where a prima facie case under the Act was not made out.
• This led to controversy and protests, with critics arguing that it weakened the law. Later, in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court clarified that anticipatory bail can indeed be considered, but only in exceptional cases, and only if the court is convinced that the complaint is prima facie false or motivated.
• So, to sum up: anticipatory bail is barred under the SC/ST Act to safeguard vulnerable communities and ensure the law’s effectiveness, but the Supreme Court has allowed a very limited, cautious window to prevent misuse of false cases

The verdict makes it clear that the SC/ST Act is not merely a procedural safeguard but a substantive legal protection meant to uphold the dignity and safety of marginalized groups. The prohibition on anticipatory bail, though stringent, is constitutionally valid since it directly addresses the genuine risks of coercion and reprisal faced by Dalit and tribal complainants.

Looking ahead, the judiciary must honor the intent behind Section 18 and refrain from weakening its effect by prematurely dismissing allegations as exaggerated. Instead, courts should apply the “prima facie test” strictly on the basis of the FIR, without venturing into an evidentiary assessment at the bail stage. The ruling also acknowledges that acts of electoral revenge targeting SC/ST voters threaten not just individuals, but also the broader principles of democratic participation and social justice