Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act Triggers Statutory Bar Against Anticipatory Bail: High Court of Delhi

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of assault and the use of caste-based slurs, affirming that when a prima facie case is established under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , the statutory bar against pre-arrest bail under Section 18 must be strictly enforced. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, presiding over the case, clarified that courts cannot exercise their discretion to grant relief when legislative safeguards for marginalized communities are clearly invoked.

Case Background

The petitioner, Virender Singh Bidhuri, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 386/2025, registered at P.S. Badarpur. The complainant, an Assistant Manager at Batra Hospital, alleged that on July 30, 2025, the petitioner obstructed her vehicle on the Badarpur Flyover, forcibly removed her, assaulted her, and subjected her to verbal abuse using caste-related derogatory remarks.

The defense contended that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was a retaliatory measure following a monetary dispute. Conversely, the State argued that the allegations, supported by a medical report and the complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, were grave enough to warrant custodial interrogation.

Legal Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the incident did not occur in "public view," a prerequisite for an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Relying on precedents such as * Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand * and Swaran Singh v. State , the defense maintained that private disputes do not automatically attract the harsh provisions of the Act.

The State and the complainant, appearing via video conferencing, countered that the location—a public flyover—constituted a "public view" setting. The prosecution emphasized that the petitioner’s actions, including the destruction of the car’s glass and physical violence, demonstrated a deliberate intent to humiliate the complainant based on her caste.

Legal Analysis

The Court examined the interplay between Section 438 of the CrPC and Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act. It held that the law has evolved to prevent the misuse of the Act, but noted that where clear evidence of intent to humiliate a member of a protected community exists, the "public view" criterion is sufficiently met by the public nature of the incident’s location.

Distinguishing between mere personal conflict and caste-based atrocity, the Court reaffirmed that the judicial bar on anticipatory bail is not a "mechanical fetter" but a necessary consequence when the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the special statute.

Key Observations

Highlighting the gravity of the legislative intent, Justice Dudeja remarked:

• "The SC/ST Act is a special provision which provides stringent safeguards to protect the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities to give effect to the constitutional ideals."
• "If a prima facie case under the Act exists, the statutory bar operates strongly against the grant of anticipatory bail."
• "The 'public view' limb is not a superfluity, rather an essential element which the prosecution must prima facie establish to attract the above said provision."
• "A bare reading of Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act, makes it abundantly clear that the legislature has taken away the benefit of anticipatory bail in respect of the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act."

Court’s Decision

The High Court ultimately dismissed the bail application, concluding that the prima facie allegations of caste-based slurs and physical assault necessitated the application of the statutory bar. This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity of the SC/ST Act, ensuring that accused individuals in such matters are subjected to standard investigative procedures, including custodial interrogation where appropriate. The court clarified that its observations were limited only to the bail application and would not prejudice the trial on merits.