After Dalit Man’s Death, Karnataka HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Wife’s Alleged Lover, Grants It To Friend, Finding No Prima Facie Material Against Him

The appellants, accused Nos. 1 and 2, challenged the rejection of their anticipatory-bail application in a case registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife, causing the deceased distress before his death by suicide, and that accused No. 2, a friend of accused No. 1, facilitated the offence.

The complainant disputed whether the death was suicidal or homicidal, and the State and complainant opposed anticipatory bail, citing the statutory bar and the need for custodial interrogation.

The Special Court had rejected the appellants’ application.

Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act impose a bar on anticipatory bail in cases under the Act; however, under the principle stated in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, that bar does not operate where the complaint and materials disclose no prima facie case against the accused.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, and the alleged offences were under Section 3(2)(v) of that Act and Section 108 of the BNS.

The Court also considered whether custodial interrogation was necessary in assessing accused No. 1’s request.

As to accused No. 1, the complaint alleged a relationship with the deceased’s wife and linked the deceased’s distress to that conduct; because the complainant questioned whether the death was suicidal or homicidal, the Court considered custodial interrogation potentially necessary.

As to accused No. 2, the complaint attributed no specific overt act to him. Although the complainant relied on writing on the deceased’s arm naming accused No. 2, the Court found that writing unclear and illegible; it therefore found no prima facie material sufficient to attract the alleged offences against him, so the statutory bar did not prevent consideration of anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory bail was refused to accused No. 1, while accused No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions including appearance before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days, execution of a ₹1,00,000 personal bond with two sureties for the like sum, cooperation with the investigation and trial, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if the conditions are violated.