Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that when an FIR does not allege that the offence was committed because of the victim’s caste, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against anticipatory bail does not apply. 

• This ruling was delivered by Justice Virender Singh in the matter of Sahil Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another. 

What was the Background of Sahil Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another (2025) Case? 

Initial Complaint and FIR Registration: 

• On 05th April 2025, complainant (aged about 20 years) appeared before Women Police Station, Chamba. 
• She disclosed that she is a resident of village 'X' and had developed a relationship with applicant Sahil Sharma. 
• FIR No.14 of 2025 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 
• Complainant alleged that Sahil Sharma developed physical relations with her on pretext of marriage 

Timeline of Alleged Incidents: 

• December 2021: First alleged incident at 'Y' Hotel near bus stand 'Z' when complainant was 17 years old. 
• March 2024: Second alleged incident at the same hotel with promise of marriage. 
• 21-27 March 2025: Stayed together for 7 days at Hotel 'A' Chandigarh with continued promises of marriage. 
• August 2023 onwards: Planning for marriage on 3rd April 2025. 
• 01.4.2025: Final discussion about marriage with victim's family. 
• 02.4.2025: Applicant's mobile phone switched off, became unreachable. 

Court Journey and Proceedings 

Application Filing: 

• Applicant Sahil Sharma filed anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Claimed entire case is false and fabricated. 
• Stated, he is ordinarily a resident of Mumbai, working in a private company. 
• Claimed complainant disclosed her age as 22 years when they met in 2023. 
• The alleged December 2021 incident was concocted to bring a case under the POCSO Act. 

Investigation Progress: 

• Complainant medico-legally examined at Hospital 'X'. 
• Complainant's statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS before Judicial Magistrate. 
• Complainant identified room No.201 of Hotel 'Y', bed sheet and pillow cover seized. 
• The victim identified Hotel 'Z' at Chandigarh in mother's custody. 

Age Discrepancy Issues: 

• Complainant's DOB mentioned as 7th July 2005 in the complaint. 
• Aadhar Card submitted at Chandigarh hotel showed DOB as 6th June 2005. 
• Birth certificate and matriculation certificate showed DOB as 7th July 2005. 
• Applicant disclosed that victim emailed Aadhar Card on 6th July 2024 showing birth year as 2001. 

Addition of SC&ST Act Provisions: 

• After obtaining caste certificates, Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act added. 
• Victim found to be from the Scheduled Caste community, applicant from general category. 
• Investigation transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police. 
• Victim's supplementary statement recorded alleging caste-based exploitation. 

Victim's Additional Allegations: 

• Applicant habitually consumed alcohol and used derogatory casteist remarks like 'Chamar' and 'Churi'. 
• The applicant suggested court marriage in Dalhousie to keep it confidential from family. 
• Promised to disclose marriage to family after 5-6 months. 
• Alleged applicant fabricated Aadhar Card changing birth year from 2005 to 2001. 
• Claimed applicant's sister offered monetary compensation to withdraw complaint.

What were the Court’s Observations?

On SC&ST Act Applicability: 

• FIR contained no reference to victim's caste or caste-based exploitation. 
• SC&ST Act provisions added only on 7th May 2025 based on caste certificates. 
• Supplementary statement about caste-based rape recorded on 6th May 2025. 
• The court held that statement under Section 180 BNSS cannot be treated as part of FIR. 

Legal Precedents Applied:  

• Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024): If complaint doesn't make prima facie case for SC&ST Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. 
• Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018): No absolute bar on anticipatory bail if no prima facie case under Atrocities Act. 
• Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020): Bar under Section 18 doesn't apply if complaint doesn't make prima facie case. 
• Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024): FIR prepared after deliberations cannot be treated as FIR. 

On Investigation Statements: 

• Statement under Section 161/180 cannot be used as substantive evidence 
• Such statements can only be used for contradiction purposes under Section 162 CrPC/181 BNSS. 
• Supplementary statement about caste cannot be treated as part of original FIR. 
• Court has inherent power under Section 482 BNSS when no prima facie case made out. 

Key Findings: 

• Original FIR made no reference to caste-based exploitation. 
• Multiple discrepancies in victim's date of birth across documents. 
• The case involves a romantic relationship with disputed consensual nature. 
• Detailed evidence evaluation should be avoided at bail stage to prevent prejudice. 
• Dismissal would amount to pre-trial punishment when presumption of innocence applies. 

Court's Decision: 

• Anticipatory bail granted with personal bond of ₹50,000 and one surety of like amount 
• Interim order dated 08th May 2025 made absolute. 
• Applicant directed to file regular bail application when charge sheet is filed. 

Bail Conditions Imposed: 

• Join investigation when called by Investigating Officer. 
• Not to leave India without court permission. 
• Not to influence witnesses or persons acquainted with case facts. 
• Regularly attend trial court hearings or seek exemption through proper application. 

Final Directions: 

• Observations limited to bail application disposal, not expression of opinion on merits. 
• State at liberty to move application if bail conditions violated. 
• Record to be returned to the concerned quarter.

What is Section 18 of the SC/ST Act?

About the SC/ST Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities' members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance. 

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act: 

• This Act states nothing in section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.