Accused in alleged mob stripping and assault of woman police officer during protest gets bail in Chhattisgarh

The appellant challenged, under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Special Court’s order refusing him regular bail in a case arising from an alleged violent attack on police personnel during a protest.

The prosecution alleged, among other things, that the appellant recorded and circulated a video of a woman police officer in a semi-naked state; his identification was conducted and his mobile phone seized.

The appellant had been in custody since 2 January 2026.

His earlier bail application was rejected before the victim’s evidence was recorded; by the time of this appeal, she had been examined, but the High Court noted that her deposition contained no clear statement concerning the appellant’s act.

Only one of 63 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the victim opposed bail.

Whether the Special Court’s refusal of regular bail should be set aside in light of the circumstances that had changed since the appellant’s earlier bail application was rejected.

Whether the appellant should be released on bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations, his alleged presence at the scene, and the victim’s opposition.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides for an appeal against an order of the Special Court concerning bail.

In deciding the appeal, the Court considered the circumstances relevant to continued pre-trial detention, including the appellant’s period in custody, the stage and likely duration of the trial, and the evidence recorded since the earlier bail decision.

The judgment cites no precedent or separate statutory test governing the exercise of bail discretion.

The High Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegations, including the appellant’s alleged presence at the scene and his alleged role in recording and circulating the video.

It nevertheless treated the victim’s subsequent deposition as a material change from the circumstances existing when the earlier bail application was refused.

The appellant had been in custody for over nine months, and only one of 63 witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial could take considerable time.

Considering these circumstances together, the Court found them sufficient to grant bail; it did not determine the appellant’s guilt or finally assess the prosecution case.

The appellant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and a surety for the like amount, subject to his regular appearance before the trial court until conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

The Registry was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the trial court.