Summary and Analysis of Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr 2025 INSC 1067

1. Heading of the Judgment
Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8169 of 2025)
Supreme Court of India
Decided on September 1, 2025
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran, and N.V. Anjaria

Citation: Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., 2025 INSC 1067 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act)

• Section 18 of the SC/ST Act (Exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC)

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Anticipatory bail)

3. Basic Judgment Details
The appellant, Kiran, a member of the Matang Scheduled Caste community, filed an FIR against the respondents (members of the Jain community) for caste-based abuse, assault, and intimidation. The incident occurred on November 25, 2024, outside the appellant’s home, allegedly in retaliation for not voting for a particular candidate in the assembly elections. The Additional Sessions Judge denied anticipatory bail to the accused, but the High Court granted it. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and cancelled the anticipatory bail.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail, as the allegations prima facie disclosed offences under the SC/ST Act, and Section 18 of the Act bars anticipatory bail in such cases.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• Allegations in the FIR:
  The accused used casteist slurs ("Mangtyano") against the appellant and his family, assaulted them with an iron rod, threatened to burn their house, and molested the appellant’s mother by pulling her saree. The incident occurred in public view outside the appellant’s home.

• Bar on Anticipatory Bail (Section 18, SC/ST Act):
  Section 18 of the SC/ST Act explicitly excludes the application of Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) for offences under the Act. The Court emphasized that this bar is constitutional and aims to protect vulnerable communities from intimidation and harassment.

• Prima Facie Case Established:
  The Supreme Court found that the FIR disclosed all ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) (intentional insult or intimidation in public view), 3(1)(s) (caste-based abuse), and other provisions of the SC/ST Act. The use of casteist language and the public nature of the incident were critical factors.

• High Court’s Error:
  The High Court incorrectly conducted a "mini trial" by analyzing witness statements and discrepancies, which is not permissible at the bail stage. The bar under Section 18 applies if the FIR prima facie discloses an offence under the SC/ST Act.

• Precedents Cited:
  The Court relied on judgments like Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (2020), which affirm the absolute bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act unless no prima facie case is made out.

• Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, cancelled the anticipatory bail, and directed that the trial proceed independently without being influenced by the observations in this judgment.

5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the strict bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act when a prima facie case of caste-based atrocities is disclosed. The High Court’s order granting bail was deemed illegal and set aside.