'FIR Can't Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Based On Police Statement', Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Case

The Supreme Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to individuals who had allegedly hurled caste-based abuse at the members of the Scheduled Caste category, noting that the authenticity of an FIR cannot be doubted merely because it was registered based on a police statement, not by a complainant.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which had granted an anticipatory bail in an SC/ST case, by expressing reservations about the genuineness and authenticity of the FIR registered based on the police official's statement.

The case arose out of a dispute between two groups. Members of a Scheduled Caste community alleged that drainage water from the houses of members belonging to an upper caste community was being directed into their homes. When the affected residents protested, tensions escalated in the locality.

Police officials reached the spot to defuse the situation and attempt reconciliation between the two groups. However, the confrontation allegedly turned violent. According to the prosecution, members of the accused group used firearms and also hurled caste-based abuses at the complainant side. The incident was reportedly captured on video.

Based on the statement of a police official present at the scene and the available material, the police registered an FIR alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act, 1959.

During the investigation, authorities also examined a counter-case registered against the complainant's group arising from the same incident. That case was eventually closed after the investigation concluded that the persons named as accused were innocent.

The accused approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court granted relief, placing significant reliance on the fact that the FIR had not been registered on the complaint of the alleged victim but on the statement of a police officer. It also expressed doubt about whether the allegations disclosed offences under the SC/ST Act, prompting the members of the SC group to move to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the bench noted that the High Court had erred in giving undue primacy to the source of the FIR rather than examining whether the information discloses the commission of cognizable offences.

“We see from the order that the High Court primarily relied on the fact that no complaint on behalf of the alleged victim, the 1st appellant, of a caste related abuse by the accused was made and the FIR was registered on the statement of a police official.”, the Court noted, pointing out that the source of the information becomes immaterial once it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, particularly in the present case where the FIR was based on the statement of a police official who had himself witnessed the incident.

The Court observed that the High Court had ignored important materials, including the investigation report and the police affidavit, which referred to the use of firearms and caste-based abuses during the incident.

“The learned counsel for the appellants also took us through the short affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police before the High Court and also the report of investigation from the records. There is clear allegation of shots having been fired and casteist slurs levelled which has been ignored by the High Court.”, the court noted.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granted to the Respondents was cancelled, directing them to surrender within 15 days.

Headnote

Criminal Law: Anticipatory Bail — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 18 — Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, observing that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was established - noted that while the High Court relied on the absence of casteist slurs in the initial FIR (lodged by a police official based on a social media video), it failed to exercise sufficient caution in examining other records - an affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and statements of various persons clearly alleged the use of casteist slurs and violence by the upper-caste respondents against marginalized community members over a drainage dispute – noted that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which precludes the grant of anticipatory bail, is applicable when the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed - In this case, investigation reports indicated offences under the SC/ST Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Arms Act - noted that mere attempts at reconciliation by the police cannot prevent the taking of cognizance for criminal acts - Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in concluding there was no prima facie culpability, as subsequent investigation reports and affidavits by high ranking police officials corroborated allegations of caste-based abuse and firearm discharge – Appeals allowed. [Relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249; Paras 8-15]

Cause Title: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Versus State of Punjab and Anr. (with connected appeal)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zain Haider, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Santpal Singh Sindhu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj, Adv. Ms. Amisha Dubey, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Verma, AOR