Bail granted on parity, prolonged detention, and likely trial delay despite SC/ST Act charges.

The deceased, Kajal Bhardwaj, wife of accused Kamlesh Mahant, died after allegedly consuming poison.

The prosecution case was that the deceased, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, was harassed by her in-laws for dowry and on account of her caste, leading to her suicide.

Following the merg investigation, Crime No. 144/2025 was registered for offences under Sections 80(2) read with Section 3(5), and Section 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Appellant Sarojni Mahant, the deceased’s sister-in-law, was arrested on 18 February 2026, while appellants Ragini Mahant and Lakshmin Bai, also relatives of the deceased, were arrested on 25 November 2025.

Ragini Mahant and Lakshmin Bai had earlier had their bail application dismissed on merits, whereas co-accused Ramayan Singh Markam and Rajkumari Markam had subsequently been granted bail by the High Court.

At the time of hearing, four of twenty prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The father of the deceased opposed the grant of bail.

Whether the appellants were entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, considering their period of detention, the evidence on record, and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

Whether the appellants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Ramayan Singh Markam and Rajkumari Markam, who had already been granted bail.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to examine the order concerning regular bail.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 80(2) and 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning dowry-related death and culpable homicide/murder-related liability, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which addresses offences committed against a person knowing that the person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material evidence, the period of custody, the progress of the trial, the possibility of delay, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court considered the evidence of Narayan Prasad (PW-1), the nature of the allegations, and the period for which the appellants had remained in custody.

It also noted that only four of twenty witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Although Ragini Mahant and Lakshmin Bai had previously been denied bail on merits, the Court found that the subsequent grant of bail to co-accused Ramayan Singh Markam and Rajkumari Markam supported the appellants’ claim of parity.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary pending trial and that the appellants could be released subject to appropriate conditions.

All three appellants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 each, together with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

They were required to appear before the Trial Court as and when directed.