Bail denied for sexual exploitation and SC/ST Act offenses pending investigation and filing of charge-sheet.

The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 11/2026.

The complainant alleged that the Appellant, despite knowing her caste, induced her with a promise of marriage in April 2025 and established physical relations by deceit.

She further alleged that the Appellant sexually exploited her until January 2026 by threatening to make obscene photographs and videos viral.

The Appellant was arrested on February 3, 2026, and charged under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(2) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST Act.

The Appellant contended that there was an unexplained 10-month delay in the FIR and that the complainant was a married major woman.

Whether the Appellant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act in light of the allegations and the current stage of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, which provides the statutory framework for appeals against the grant or refusal of bail.

Substantively, the Court considered Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS regarding sexual intercourse by deceitful means and Sections 3(1)(2) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST Act, which penalize atrocities committed against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

The Court weighed the Appellant’s arguments regarding his innocence, the delay in the FIR, and the lack of criminal antecedents against the State’s opposition.

The State Counsel and the victim contended that the Appellant used intoxicating substances to establish relations and recorded obscene media for blackmail.

In its reasoning, the Court focused on the procedural status of the case, specifically noting that the investigation remained ongoing and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

The Court determined that due to the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the investigation was in its nascent stages, it was not inclined to exercise its discretion to grant bail at this time.

The Court held that the ongoing nature of the investigation and the fact that the charge-sheet was pending were sufficient grounds to deny the request for release at this stage.