Bail was justified where a road dispute disclosed no prima facie caste-based intent.

The appellant, accused No. 2, appealed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the Sessions Court’s refusal to grant regular bail in Crime No. 139/2026.

The case arose from a dispute over road widening and alleged encroachments.

The complainant alleged that the appellant and others assaulted him, his brother, and others with weapons, caused injuries, and used caste slurs.

The State and complainant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, and concerns about witness intimidation.

The appellant relied on the road-widening dispute, the absence of an intention to humiliate anyone on caste grounds, a counter-case, and the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused.

1. Whether the material at the bail stage disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant.

2. Whether the appellant had established grounds for setting aside the refusal of bail and being released on regular bail, notwithstanding the ongoing investigation and the objections raised by the State and complainant.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides for an appeal against an order concerning bail under the Act.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court applied the principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, that pre-trial custody is not to operate as punishment, and that risks to investigation or witnesses may be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

It also considered the absence of a death-punishable offence, the appellant’s lack of known antecedents, and parity with co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the road-widening dispute to be the apparent genesis of the incident and found no prima facie material at that stage showing that the appellant intended to insult or humiliate the complainant or others by reason of caste; it therefore found no reason to believe that the SC/ST Act offences were made out against him for purposes of the bail decision.

It also noted that the appellant was a permanent resident within the trial court’s jurisdiction, had no disclosed antecedents, and that the injured persons had been discharged from hospital.

Although investigation remained incomplete, the State had shown no special ground requiring continued detention; the Court considered that the concerns about cooperation and witness interference could be met by conditions.

The similar allegations against co-accused who had received anticipatory bail further supported release on parity.

It directed that the appellant be released on bail on executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the relevant courts when directed, non-interference with the investigation or prosecution witnesses, and no commission of similar or other offences during the case; the complainant or police may seek cancellation if the conditions are violated.