Bail may be granted where alleged caste abuse occurred by phone and further custody is unnecessary.

The appellant was arrested on 17 September 2026 in Crime No. 464 of 2026, registered under Section 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

The de-facto complainant alleged that, during a phone conversation, the appellant abused him and humiliated his caste after a dispute concerning demands for a bribe.

The Sessions Court dismissed the appellant’s bail application, citing the incomplete investigation and the stage of the case.

The appellant appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Whether the alleged caste-based abuse during a phone call could constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act or Section 296(b) of the BNS.

Whether the appellant should be released on bail while the investigation was nearing completion and further custody was not required.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The alleged offences were under Section 3(1)(s) of that Act, Section 296(b) of the BNS, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

The Court left the question of whether the phone conversation satisfied the elements of the alleged offences for determination at trial.

It also referred to P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, [(2005) AIR SCW 5560], in relation to the trial court’s authority to act on breach of bail conditions.

The Court noted that the alleged incident occurred during a phone call but did not determine whether that conversation amounted to the charged offences, holding that the issue should be examined at trial.

It considered that the appellant had been in custody since 17 September 2026, the investigation was almost complete, and further custody was unnecessary for investigation or trial.

It therefore found bail appropriate, subject to conditions intended to secure the appellant’s attendance, prevent interference with evidence or witnesses, and protect the de-facto complainant.

It directed the appellant’s release on a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions including weekly police-station attendance, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and non-abscondence.

The Court also directed the police to ensure the de-facto complainant’s safety and provided for appropriate action in the event of breach of the conditions.