The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act cannot be denied if the FIR lacks any mention that the alleged offence was committed due to the victim’s Scheduled Caste status. Justice Virender Singh held that the FIR filed against Sahil Sharma did not state that the alleged rape was based on caste. The woman, who filed the complaint, accused Sharma of sexual exploitation under a false promise of marriage. She later alleged caste-based abuse, but these details emerged only in a supplementary statement. The Court emphasized that only FIR allegations should be considered while deciding anticipatory bail. It cited Supreme Court rulings in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat to highlight that delayed statements can’t override initial FIR content.
Since the FIR and early reports lacked any caste-related motive, the SC/ST Act’s bar on anticipatory bail did not apply. The Court allowed bail and noted that denying it would amount to pretrial punishment.
