A prima facie SC/ST Act case alone does not justify denying bail once investigation is complete.

The appellant, accused No. 3, sought regular bail in Crime No. 131/2026, registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 329(3), 74, 109, 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The complaint alleged that, during a land-related dispute involving sheep passing through the complainant’s land, the appellant assaulted the complainant’s husband, while other accused assaulted the complainant and her father-in-law.

The appellant argued that the complaint was false and a counterblast to a case registered against the complainant’s family over the same incident.

The Sessions Court rejected his bail application; the appellant challenged that order under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the bail order.

The Court applied the general principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that pre-trial custody should not operate as punishment; it also considered whether custody remained necessary after the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, and whether risks to witnesses or the trial could be addressed through conditions.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the State’s submissions that the complaint attributed a specific assault with an axe to the appellant and that release could lead to witness tampering.

It nevertheless noted that the wound certificates described the injuries as simple, the injured husband had been discharged from hospital, and the investigation was complete with the charge sheet filed.

The Court also took into account the counter-case arising from the same incident and the grant of anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1–5 in that case, as well as the absence of material indicating prior similar offences by the appellant.

It concluded that the State’s concerns could be addressed by imposing conditions and that no sufficient ground remained to deny bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the appellant to attend and assist the trial when directed, not to tamper with prosecution witnesses or hamper the investigation or trial, and not to commit similar or other offences while the case is pending.