Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Denial of Pre-Arrest Bail in Caste-Based Discrimination Case

Court dismisses Pushpa Devi's plea for anticipatory bail due to the absolute bar under SC/ST Act, citing caste-motivated assault on minor.

Shimla, October 14, 2025 - In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court denied pre-arrest bail to Pushpa Devi, accused of caste-based discrimination under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, who upheld the absolute bar against anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, following a thorough examination of the allegations and circumstances surrounding the case.

Pushpa Devi, a resident of Chirgaon, District Shimla, faced charges under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the SC/ST Act, following an incident where she allegedly confined and assaulted an 11-year-old minor from the Koli community. The accusations included demands for a sacrificial goat to purify her home after the child inadvertently touched it, an act rooted in caste prejudice.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Ms. Suman Thakur argued for anticipatory bail, citing precedents where courts granted relief if no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was evident. However, the status report and witness testimonies, including an interview by the accused, reinforced the caste-based nature of the offence.

Justice Kainthla noted that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act unequivocally excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to anticipatory bail. Drawing from Supreme Court rulings such as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, he emphasized that anticipatory bail can only be considered if the FIR fails to establish a prima facie case under the Act. In this instance, the court concluded that the accusations were firmly rooted in caste discrimination, thereby triggering the statutory bar.

The judgment underscores the legislative intent to protect vulnerable communities from caste-based atrocities, aligning with the constitutional mandate to abolish untouchability and safeguard civil rights. This decision not only reinforces the legal framework designed to combat social injustice but also serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding these protections.

The court's dismissal of the petition is confined to procedural aspects and does not prejudice the merits of the ongoing criminal proceedings. The case remains a poignant illustration of the challenges faced by marginalized communities and the legal mechanisms in place to address such violations.

Bottom Line:

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is excluded by Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, barring pre-arrest bail to persons accused of offences under the Act, unless no prima facie case for the applicability of the Act is made out.

Statutory provision(s): Section 438 of Cr.P.C., Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 107, 127(2), 115(2)).

Pushpa Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794690