Bail granted where FIR omission and subsequent contradictory statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. weakened specific allegations of assault.

The appellant, Pancham Jatav, filed a first criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging the denial of bail by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, on 12/06/2026

The prosecution alleged that following a dispute over a torn banner, the appellant, along with co-accused Kamal Jatav and another individual, arrived at the complainant’s house. It was alleged that the co-accused threw a brick at the complainant’s father, causing a head injury

The appellant was arrested on 12/05/2026 for offenses under Sections 109(1), 296(A), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of the SC/ST Act

The appellant contended that the FIR initially only placed him at the spot without specific overt acts, and the allegation of using a Fatta was an afterthought introduced in subsequent statements

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of regular bail despite the bar under the SC/ST Act, considering the nature of allegations and the duration of custody

2. Whether the impugned order dated 12/06/2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) refusing bail is sustainable in law

The Court primarily applied Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for appeals against orders granting or refusing bail

The Court also considered the principles of regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (as referenced in the lower court's order) and the penal provisions of Sections 109(1), 296(A), and 3(5) of the BNS

The court balanced the gravity of the offense against the fundamental principle of liberty, considering the lack of specific initial allegations against the appellant and the expected duration of the trial

The Court analyzed the discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It noted the appellant's argument that the primary allegation of causing head injury was directed at co-accused Bhoop Singh, whereas the appellant’s role was initially described as mere presence at the scene

The Court further observed that the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time to conclude and that there was no evidenced risk of the appellant fleeing from justice

By evaluating the material on record without commenting on the final merits, the Court determined that the appellant’s continued incarceration was not warranted during the trial phase

The Court ordered the release of the appellant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-tampering of evidence, and restrictions on leaving the country