Bail granted where the chargesheet is filed and the trial is likely to be prolonged.

The appellants challenged, under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the order dated 17 June 2026 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Guna, dismissed their bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

They were arrested on 16 June 2026 in Crime No. 222/2025 registered at Police Station Maksudangarh, District Guna, for offences under Sections 132, 121(1), 296(B) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 18 December 2025, while a Naib Nazir and his team were executing a civil court possession warrant, the appellants obstructed the proceedings; Toni allegedly pushed and manhandled the complainant, Sabir abused him and poured oil on himself, and Sabdar recorded the incident.

The appellants contended that the dispute arose from a pre-existing civil dispute concerning immovable property, that they had earlier been issued notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the appellants had obstructed public servants in the execution of a judicial order.

The State also submitted that the victim had been informed of the appeal as required by Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

1. Whether the appellants should be granted bail in an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the rejection of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the allegations and material on record.

2. Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides an appellate remedy against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court; Section 483 of the BNSS, governing the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail; and Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, requiring notice and protection of the victim’s rights in proceedings under the Act.

The Court also considered Section 35(3) of the BNSS, under which a notice may be issued where arrest is not immediately required, as a relevant circumstance concerning custodial necessity.

The governing bail principles included consideration of the nature of the accusations, the stage of investigation, the necessity of continued custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the appellants obstructed the execution of a judicial possession warrant and noted the State’s opposition to bail.

However, it gave particular weight to the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for further custodial interrogation, and that the trial was likely to take time to conclude.

The appellants’ prior receipt of notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was also relied upon as a circumstance indicating that immediate custodial detention had not earlier been considered necessary.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the circumstances sufficient to warrant bail, subject to stringent conditions aimed at securing the appellants’ cooperation and preventing interference with the administration of justice.

The appellants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring 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.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.