A specific dying declaration establishing proximate harassment and suicide justifies denying bail.

The appellants preferred an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 17.07.2026 by which the Special Court, Dewas, dismissed their bail application.

The case arose from Crime No. 324/2026 registered at Police Station Khategaon for offences under Sections 140(2), 108, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Arjun, and his wife owned a one-acre property at village Dawtha.

The accused allegedly sought to obtain the property and repeatedly threatened the deceased.

On 19.05.2026, they allegedly intercepted, assaulted and forcibly took him to the Tehsil office, where he was compelled to execute documents transferring the property.

The deceased thereafter consumed poison on 20.05.2026 and died during treatment.

The appellants claimed false implication, omnibus allegations, absence of instigation or intentional aid, and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, relying on specific and direct evidence recorded in the case diary.

The High Court particularly considered a video transcript recorded by the deceased before consuming poison, in which he named the accused and attributed his suicide to their alleged coercion, assault and harassment.

The Court applied Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail in proceedings involving offences under the Act.

The alleged offences included Sections 140(2), 108, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

At the bail stage, the Court assessed whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case and whether the circumstances justified release; it treated the deceased’s video transcript, the alleged coercive acts, the proximate connection with the suicide, and the appellants’ criminal antecedents as relevant considerations.

The Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on the alleged absence of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC at the preliminary stage.

The Court found the video transcript to be the most significant material against the appellants.

In it, the deceased specifically named the accused, stated that he had been abducted from Tirapti Chauraha, and asserted that he was forced through fear and assault to execute the property documents.

Although the transcript referred to separate emotional distress concerning a woman named Rani, the Court held that the immediate and principal cause of the suicide was attributed to the appellants’ conduct.

The alleged continuous threats, abduction, assault and forced execution of property documents were held to constitute prima facie harassment and coercion having a proximate link with the suicide.

The Court further considered the appellants’ criminal antecedents and the gravity of the allegations involving property grabbing, abetment of suicide and offences under the SC/ST Act.

Accordingly, the defences of false implication, parity and absence of abetment could not be conclusively examined at the bail stage and did not displace the prima facie case.

It found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the Special Court’s refusal to grant bail.

The criminal appeal was dismissed, the order dated 17.07.2026 in Bail Application No. 839/2026 was affirmed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the Trial Court.