Bail granted where the alleged offence lacked intent to target the complainant on caste grounds.

The appellant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 54/2026 registered at Police Station Nagarda for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 117(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r)-(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The complainant alleged that the appellant and co-accused abused him by referring to his caste, knowing that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, and assaulted him with kicks and stones.

The appellant’s case was that he had allegedly thrown a stone from the roof, causing injury and dislocation to the complainant’s left shoulder; the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had remained in custody since 11 June 2026.

Two co-accused had already been granted bail, and the appellant asserted that he had been acquitted in the pending criminal antecedent.

The Special Judge rejected his bail application by order dated 23 June 2026, leading to the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the complainant had sustained serious injuries, including a fracture, while the complainant did not oppose the appeal.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, notwithstanding the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act and the nature of the complainant’s injuries?

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant’s period of custody, the grant of bail to co-accused, and the appellant’s acquittal in prior criminal cases justified interference with the Special Judge’s order?

3. Whether the allegations disclosed an offence under the SC/ST Act involving intentional targeting of the complainant on the ground of his caste or status?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to examine the rejection of bail.

The prosecution invoked Sections 3(1)(r)-(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, together with the stated provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, the treatment of co-accused, the appellant’s criminal antecedents, the nature of the allegations, and the complainant’s lack of opposition.

The Court also applied the principle that bail may be granted where continued custody is not necessary for investigation and the trial is likely to take time, without expressing a final opinion on the merits.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the appellant had been in custody since 11 June 2026, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

It also considered that two co-accused had already been granted bail and accepted the appellant’s submission that he had been acquitted in all prior criminal cases.

Although the State relied on the serious injuries suffered by the complainant, the Court concluded that the allegations did not establish, for the purpose of bail, that the incident was committed with the intention of targeting the complainant because he belonged to a particular caste or category.

Balancing these circumstances against the anticipated duration of the trial, the Court held that the appellant deserved the benefit of bail, while leaving the merits of the prosecution case open.

The appellant, Raghvendra Jaiswal, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to face proceedings in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

The trial Court was requested to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.