Section 18 SC/ST Act bars pre-arrest bail if prima facie offence made out; here, caste-motivated confinement, beating of minor scheduled caste victim for touching house constitutes such offence.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 90/2025, dated 20.09.2025, registered at Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 107 , 127(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS).

2. The police filed the status report asserting that Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) were also added after the registration of F.I.R.

3. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that Section 438 of Cr. P.C. is excluded by Section 18 of the SC & ST Act, and the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court can grant the pre-arrest bail when it is satisfied that no case for the commission of an offence punishable under the SC & ST Act is made out. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India , (2020) 4 SCC 727, in support of this submission.

5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

6. The status report shows that the F.I.R. was initially registered under various provisions of BNS. The police conducted an investigation and found that the deceased Sikander belonged to the scheduled caste community (koli), whereas the accused Pushpa Devi does not belong to the scheduled caste community. The deceased was aged 11 years and 10 months, whereas the accused is aged 50 years. The accused demanded a goat from the deceased for the purification of her house. This fact was corroborated by the statements of Kumari Manju, Suresh Kumar and Sarojini Devi. The accused also gave an interview to a local news media channel on 1st October, 2025 in which she admitted that she had confined the deceased inside her cowshed and stated that she would not release him until the goat was given to her. Chain Ram, Kardar made a statement about the caste prejudices prevalent against members of the scheduled caste, like ‘koli’ and who are treated as untouchable and not allowed to enter the house. The F.I.R. also mentions that the deceased had disclosed to his mother that the accused and 2-3 women had beaten and confined the deceased to the cowshed. The accused was saying that the deceased had touched her house, and she would not release him unless the goat was given to her.

7. The allegations in the status report show that the accused had confined the deceased in the cowshed and given him beatings because he had touched her house. She asked for a sacrificial goat to purify her house. The accused and the deceased belonged to the same village, and as per Section 8(c) of the SC & ST Act, there is a presumption that the accused was aware of the caste of the deceased. Beating and threatening a person are prima facie punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC, which have been mentioned in Section 3(2)(va). Since the beatings were given because the deceased had touched the house of the accused, which he was not entitled to do because of his caste, prima facie, the offence was committed because of the caste of the deceased.

8. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India , (2020) 4 SCC 727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657: 2020 SCC