Bail granted under the SC/ST Act where trial was likely to be prolonged.

The appellant challenged the order dated 8 July 2026 by which the Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST, Sheopur dismissed his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). The appeal was filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The appellant had been arrested on 23 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 107/2026 registered at Police Station Vijaypur, District Sheopur, for offences under Sections 115(2), 296(A), 351(3), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 117(2), 118(2) and 109(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

According to the prosecution, a dispute concerning land resulted in an altercation in which caste-based abuses were allegedly used and members of the complainant’s side were assaulted with sticks and an axe.

The appellant asserted that the incident was a free fight, that the complainant’s side was the aggressor, and that the accused party acted in self-defence.

The specific allegation against him was that he struck injured Dharshan on the nose and head, causing a nasal fracture.

The appellant also submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 23 May 2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The State and the complainant opposed the appeal and contended that the allegations and material on record did not justify bail.

The State also submitted that the victim had been informed of the appeal in compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, despite the allegations under the BNS and the SC/ST Act?

Whether, considering the appellant’s period of custody, the likely delay in conclusion of the trial, and the circumstances of the alleged incident, the order refusing bail was liable to be set aside?

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which permits an appeal against an order of a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court refusing or granting bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving non-bailable offences.

Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, requiring notice and protection of the rights of victims.

The Court also considered the statutory offences alleged under the BNS and Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The governing bail principle applied was that bail may be granted after considering the nature of the allegations, the material on record, the period of custody, the likelihood of the trial taking time, the possibility of the accused fleeing or influencing witnesses, and the need to impose appropriate conditions.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

The Court considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary.

Although the prosecution alleged caste-based abuse and assault causing injuries, the appellant disputed the prosecution version, asserted that the incident was a free fight, relied on the absence of criminal antecedents, and pointed out that the trial would take time to conclude.

Without making any finding on the merits, the Court treated the anticipated delay in trial and the overall attending circumstances as sufficient to justify interference with the rejection of bail.

The Court therefore set aside the Special Court’s order and granted bail, subject to a personal bond, solvent surety, and conditions designed to secure the appellant’s cooperation, prevent witness intimidation or repetition of the offence, avoid unnecessary adjournments, restrict foreign travel, and require periodic attendance at the concerned police station.

The order dated 8 July 2026 refusing bail was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to compliance with the bond, cooperation in the investigation or trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

In addition, the appellant was directed to mark his presence at the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for one year.