Bail granted to spouse in SC/ST Act case as inter-caste marriage precludes essential ingredients of atrocities.

The appellant was arrested on April 8, 2026, following a complaint filed by his wife, Sangeeta Ahirwar.

The complainant alleged that the appellant, who suspected her of infidelity and was an alcoholic, assaulted her and used caste-based slurs on March 4, 2026, after she refused to give him money for liquor.

The appellant was charged under Sections 119(1), 296(B), 115(2), and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various provisions of the SC/ST Act.

This is the appellant’s third criminal appeal; the first was withdrawn with liberty to file after the challan, and the second was withdrawn due to procedural non-maintainability.

The appellant sought bail on the grounds that the investigation was complete, the dispute was matrimonial, and the SC/ST Act was inapplicable as the parties are husband and wife.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act and Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the completion of the investigation and the nature of the allegations.

2. Whether the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act are attracted in a dispute where the complainant is the wife of the appellant.

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, which mandates informing the victim about the proceedings.

Sections 119(1), 296(B), 115(2), and 126(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the fact that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

The Court noted the appellant's argument that the medical evidence did not strongly support the prosecution's claims and that most alleged BNS offences were bailable.

The Court considered the defense that the SC/ST Act might not be applicable because the dispute was personal and matrimonial in nature.

Finding that the trial would likely be prolonged and that there was no immediate risk of the appellant fleeing or tampering with evidence, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The appellant was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including not harassing the complainant and not contacting her through digital modes.