Bail Granted in SC/ST Atrocities Case After Considering Injuries and Investigative Needs

The appellants challenged the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru’s order dated 22 September 2026 rejecting their bail application in Crime No. 22/2026.

The case arose from a complaint alleging that the appellants assaulted the complainant and Chandan, including with an iron rod, and abused Chandan by caste.

The offences invoked included provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants had been in judicial custody since 11 August 2026.

They contended, among other things, that the victim had been discharged, their custodial presence was no longer required, and appellant No. 2 belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.

The complainant, though served, did not appear.

1. Whether the appellants should be released on bail pending trial, having regard to the nature of the injuries, their custody, and the investigation.

2. Whether the asserted Scheduled Tribe status of appellant No. 2 affected the applicability of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the rejection of a bail application made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution had invoked Sections 109(1), 351 and 352, read with Section 3(5), of the BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a detailed statutory test for bail; it states that bail was appropriate after considering the grounds raised, the nature of the injuries, and the appellants’ prior antecedents.

The Court considered that the victim had been discharged, the appellants were not required for further investigation, and the nature of the injuries and the appellants’ prior antecedents supported release on conditions.

It also noted counsel’s submission that appellant No. 2 belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, but did not separately determine the applicability of the SC/ST Act or analyse the ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal subject to safeguards intended to secure the appellants’ attendance and protect the investigation and witnesses.

It directed that each appellant be released on executing a self-bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions that they not tamper with or threaten witnesses, assist the investigating officer if required, and not commit a similar offence.