VIRENDER SINGH BIDHURI V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2025:DHC:9396:

DATE: 28/10/2025

COURT: High Court of Delhi

BENCH: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

FACTS:

The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 386/2025 registered at P.S. Badarpur under various sections of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w-ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant, an Assistant Manager at Batra Hospital, alleged that while returning from work, the petitioner stopped her car near Badarpur Flyover, broke the window, pulled her out, physically assaulted, molested, and verbally abused her with caste-based slurs, threatening her not to approach the police. The incident was corroborated by her medical report and subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS, in which she reiterated the caste-related abuse and added that the petitioner had earlier come to her house in an intoxicated state to threaten her family.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated in a fabricated case arising out of a personal dispute. He asserted that he and the complainant were in a consensual relationship, supported by WhatsApp chats, photographs, and call records showing intimacy. He claimed that he had helped her secure employment and extended financial aid, which she was unwilling to repay, leading her to lodge a false complaint. The petitioner further argued that there was no evidence that he knew of the complainant’s caste or that the incident occurred “in public view,” both of which are essential ingredients under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Conversely, the prosecution and complainant opposed the plea, asserting that the act occurred in public view, involved caste-based insults, and caused physical harm. The State maintained that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied, precluding the grant of anticipatory bail.

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the Court was whether, on a prima facie assessment of the FIR and the complainant’s statements, the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w-ii) of the SC/ST Act were made out, thereby invoking the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act and disqualifying the petitioner from being granted anticipatory bail.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail. It held that the allegations in the FIR and the complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence under the SC/ST Act, as the incident involved caste-based abuse in a place within public view. Consequently, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act applied, precluding the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The Court began by emphasizing the dual purpose of the SC/ST Act to protect members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes from discrimination, abuse, and violence while ensuring that it is not misused for ulterior motives. Relying on precedents such as State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012), and Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Court reiterated that the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act is absolute when a prima facie case under the Act is made out. The Court clarified that although it retains jurisdiction to examine whether the allegations prima facie disclose an offence, once the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w-ii) are established, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. It observed that the presence of caste-based remarks, physical assault, and public visibility of the act fulfilled these requirements in the present case.

Further, the Court discussed the element of “public view,” citing Swaran Singh v. State (2008) and the recent judgment in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025). It noted that “public view” does not necessarily mean a public place but any location visible to the public. In this case, the alleged assault occurred on a public road, and although no independent witness had been located, the flyover where the incident occurred was within public view. The complainant’s statement that several people had gathered during the assault, coupled with video evidence, supported this inference. As the petitioner did not belong to the SC/ST community and the complainant had produced credible caste certificates, the Court found sufficient prima facie material to establish caste-based humiliation in public. Therefore, given that the legal bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted, the Court refused to extend the protection of anticipatory bail and cautioned that its findings were limited to the purpose of bail consideration and not the trial’s merits.

ANALYSIS:

This case illustrates the Supreme Court’s consistent interpretation of the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing that protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023) cannot be extended once a prima facie offence under the Act is established. The Court adopted a balanced approach, acknowledging that while allegations under the SC/ST Act must be carefully scrutinized to prevent misuse, it cannot disregard the specific intent of the legislation, to safeguard vulnerable communities from social indignities and caste-based violence. The judgment reaffirmed that the Court’s limited jurisdiction at the pre-trial stage is only to assess whether the basic ingredients of the offence exist. Once the elements of caste-based insult, intent to humiliate, and occurrence within public view are made out from the FIR and the victim’s statement, the judicial hands are effectively tied by the statutory bar under Section 18.

Furthermore, the Court’s reliance on precedents such as Swaran Singh, Vilas Pandurang Pawar, and Prithvi Raj Chauhan reflects its commitment to a purposive interpretation of the SC/ST Act. The detailed discussion on the meaning of “public view” reinforces that humiliation need not occur in a crowd but in circumstances where the act is visible or capable of being witnessed by others. By recognizing that the alleged incident occurred on a public road and involved caste-based verbal abuse corroborated by medical and digital evidence, the Court underscored the importance of context and visibility in determining culpability. The decision thus serves as a precedent affirming that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when prima facie evidence indicates caste-based atrocity, while also reminding courts to exercise careful restraint so that the statute’s protective intent is not diluted under the guise of procedural leniency.