Bail granted under the SC/ST Act based on medical evidence, charge-sheet completion, conduct, and co-accused parity.

The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 20 May 2026 by which the Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, refused to grant him bail in CT (SC/ST) Case No. 15 of 2026.

The case arose from Balikuda P.S. Case No. 55 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused persons, assaulted Kalandi Bhoi to death by taking advantage of his caste.

The post-mortem report recorded patchy submucosal haemorrhage and opined that death resulted from haemorrhage and shock and their complications; viscera were preserved to determine whether the deceased had consumed an intoxicant.

A co-accused, Raju @ Rajkishore Mohanty, had already been granted bail on similar footing in CRLA No. 500 of 2026.

Whether the appellant should be released on bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, despite the allegations of assault resulting in the death of the deceased and the offences alleged under the BNS and the Act?

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in view of the materials on record, the circumstances preceding the incident, his conduct in taking the deceased to hospital, completion of investigation, the presumption of innocence, and parity with the co-accused who had been granted 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 refusing or granting bail in proceedings involving offences under the Act.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the materials collected, the circumstances preceding the occurrence, the appellant’s conduct, completion of investigation, the accused’s right to the presumption of innocence until conviction, and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court acknowledged that the appellant was prima facie alleged to have assaulted the deceased.

However, while assessing the bail request, it considered the medical material, including the post-mortem findings of haemorrhage and shock, along with the preservation of viscera to investigate possible intoxication.

The Court also took into account the deceased’s conduct immediately before the occurrence, the appellant’s act of taking him to hospital, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been submitted.

These circumstances, considered together with the presumption of innocence and the grant of bail to co-accused Raju @ Rajkishore Mohanty on similar footing, persuaded the Court that continued detention was not necessary at the bail stage.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the court seized of the matter might impose.

The Court further directed issuance of an urgent certified copy and immediate communication of the order to the concerned court and jail authorities.