Bail granted under the SC/ST Act where injured witnesses attributed no specific role and co-accused secured parity.

The appellant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 462/2025 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 331(7), 152 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(V-A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that, on 1 November 2025, the appellant and other accused persons, allegedly armed with lathis, hockey sticks, swords and other weapons, assaulted the complainant and his companions, forcibly entered a house, hurled caste-related abuses, and attempted to incite communal violence.

Six persons allegedly sustained injuries, and statements of injured and spot witnesses were recorded during investigation; a charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

The appellant’s bail application was rejected by the Special Judge on 5 August 2026, leading to the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant had remained in custody since 1 December 2025, and submitted that the six injured witnesses had been examined and had not supported the prosecution case, while 18 of the 21 co-accused had already been granted bail.

The State opposed bail on the basis that the appellant was named in the FIR and that a sword had been seized from him.

The victim, appearing through the concerned DLSA, recorded no objection to the grant of bail.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in view of the evidence recorded, the absence of any specific overt act attributed to him, and the period of custody?

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity, when 18 similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged on bail?

3. Whether the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial justified the appellant’s release on bail?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to consider the appellant’s challenge to the rejection of regular bail.

The governing bail principles required consideration of the nature of the accusation, the material appearing against the accused, the stage of the trial, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay, and parity with similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also considered the evidentiary significance of the injured witnesses’ depositions, particularly whether they attributed any specific role or overt act to the appellant, and took note of the victim’s no-objection to bail.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the injured witnesses—Nihal Khalkho, Naveen Painkra, Rajnish, Anish Kujur, Sonu alias Manoj Rajak and Aman Khess—had been examined before the trial Court and had not attributed any specific role or overt act to the appellant.

Although the State relied on the named FIR and seizure of a sword, the Court considered the absence of a specific attribution in the injured witnesses’ depositions as materially weakening the case for continued detention at the bail stage.

The Court further held that 18 co-accused persons standing on a similar footing had already been granted bail, thereby establishing parity in the appellant’s favour.

The appellant had undergone approximately nine months of custody, the prosecution evidence was at an ongoing stage, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

These factors, cumulatively considered, justified the grant of bail.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000, with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to his appearance before that Court as and when directed.