Bail granted in SC/ST Act case where delayed trial and absence of flight risk favoured release.

The appellant challenged, under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the order dated 2 December 2025 by which the Special Court (SC & ST), Balasore, refused him bail in Special Case No. 71 of 2025 arising from Remuna P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025.

The appellant had been charge-sheeted under Sections 80(2), 85, 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, subjected his wife—who belonged to a Scheduled Caste—to cruelty and torture for dowry and caused her murder/dowry death by taking advantage of her caste.

The deceased and the appellant had married in 2019 after a courtship. She allegedly consumed poison, was admitted to CHC, Remuna on 16 May 2025, shifted to SCB MCH, Cuttack on 17 May 2025, and died there on 19 May 2025.

The charge-sheet also disclosed matrimonial disputes relating to an alleged extra-marital affair.

The informant/victim did not appear despite notice.

Whether the appellant should be admitted to bail in an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, despite the allegations under the BNS, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the SC/ST Act.

Whether the circumstances on record—including the cause and timing of death, the matrimonial dispute, the presumption of innocence, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the absence of material indicating absconding or witness intimidation—justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for an appeal against an order of the Special Court refusing bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 80(2), 85, 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

In determining bail, the Court relied on the established principles that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that the court must assess the surrounding circumstances and the likelihood of a fair and expeditious trial, and that bail may be granted where there is no material suggesting that the accused will abscond or threaten or influence witnesses.

Although the Court acknowledged the serious allegations against the appellant, it assessed the prosecution material without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

It considered that the deceased’s immediate medical history indicated poisoning, that she survived for several days after admission before dying at SCB MCH, and that the charge-sheet disclosed a matrimonial dispute concerning an alleged extra-marital affair.

These circumstances, viewed together with the appellant’s presumption of innocence, the apparent unlikelihood of the trial commencing in the near future, and the absence of material showing that he would abscond or threaten witnesses, weighed in favour of bail.

The Court therefore found the appellant entitled to bail notwithstanding the statutory allegations.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions, excluding cash surety, as the court seized of the matter considered fit and proper.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

An urgent certified copy was directed to be issued, and the order was to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.