Bail granted under the SC/ST Act after investigation concluded and the victim expressed no objection.

The appellants challenged the order dated 25 June 2026 by which the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kawardha, rejected their applications for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 June 2026, while the complainant, Ramkumar Markam, was travelling in a four-wheeler with his friends, the appellants stopped the vehicle and abused him by using caste-related insults in a public place and with intent to humiliate him.

Crime No. 251/2026 was registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants were arrested on 23 June 2026.

The appellants contended that they had been falsely implicated, that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, that they had no similar criminal antecedents, and that they had remained in custody since 23 June 2026.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations disclosed a prima facie caste-based offence against a member of a Scheduled Tribe.

The Court noted that although the appellants had four antecedents under the Gambling Act, none related to offences similar to those alleged in the present case.

It also noted that the victim had appeared through video-conferencing and stated that he had no objection to the grant of bail.

Whether the appellants were entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, notwithstanding the allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, absence of similar criminal antecedents, and the victim’s absence of objection justified interference with the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail.

What conditions should govern the appellants’ release on bail?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the order rejecting bail, and considered the regular-bail applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 126(2), 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which concern intentional insult, intimidation or abuse of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, length of custody, the nature of the antecedents, the likely duration of trial, and the victim’s position.

The Court accepted that the prosecution alleged a prima facie caste-based insult in public view, but found that the circumstances nevertheless justified bail.

The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the need for further custodial detention; the appellants had remained in custody since 23 June 2026; and their four antecedents under the Gambling Act were not offences of a similar nature.

The Court also took into account the victim’s statement that he had no objection to bail and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the appellants could be released subject to safeguards securing their attendance and preventing misuse of liberty.

The appellants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The trial court was requested to make an earnest effort to conclude the trial expeditiously.