Bail granted after charge-sheet filing where trial was likely to be prolonged, without merits determination.

The appellant was arrested on 24 March 2026 in connection with Crime No. 03/2026 registered at Police Station A.J.K. (Ajaak), District Vidisha, for offences under Sections 329(4), 331(3), 61(2), 305(A) and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(z), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”)

His application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) was rejected by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Vidisha, on 8 August 2026.

The present appeal was filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act; two earlier appeals had been dismissed as withdrawn.

The appellant contended that he was not present when the complainant’s house was allegedly demolished and that his role was limited to transporting the complainant and his wife to the police station and later dropping them at separate locations.

The investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet filed, and certain co-accused had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the appellant should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, despite the allegations under the BNS and the SC/ST Act.

2. Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, alleged limited role of the appellant, parity with co-accused, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial justified setting aside the order refusing bail.

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate remedy against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court.

Section 483 of the BNSS governs the High Court’s power to grant bail in appropriate cases.

Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act requires protection of the rights of victims, including intimation regarding bail proceedings; the State stated that this requirement had been complied with.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s prima facie role, the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of absconding or influencing witnesses.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

The Court noted the appellant’s submission that the complainant’s own statement indicated that the appellant transported the complainant and his wife to the police station and was not present at the complainant’s house when it was demolished.

It also considered that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and further custodial interrogation was not required.

The grant of bail to co-accused was also relied upon as a factor supporting parity.

Balancing these circumstances against the State’s opposition, the Court found that the trial was likely to take considerable time and that the case did not warrant continued custody at that stage.

Without expressing any view on the merits, it exercised its appellate bail jurisdiction in favour of the appellant.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation or trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and prohibition on leaving India without prior permission.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.