Completion of investigation and a prior bail order warranted release despite the later addition of an SC/ST Act charge.

The appellant was arrested on 4 June 2026 in Crime No. 60 of 2026, initially registered as a suspicious death case and later altered to include murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed Murugan following a quarrel over a mobile phone; the appellant maintained that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and had no direct eyewitness.

A previous bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court and an earlier application before the High Court was also dismissed; the High Court subsequently granted bail on 19 August 2026 for the BNS offence.

The appellant could not execute sureties after Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was added on 21 August 2026. The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed on 15 September 2026.

Whether the appellant should be granted bail after Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was added and the previously granted bail could not be executed

Whether the Special Court’s order refusing bail should be set aside in light of the completed investigation and filed charge sheet

Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the statutory basis for the appeal against the Special Court’s order.

The alleged offences included Section 103(1) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court also referred to P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, [(2005) AIR SCW 5560], in directing that the Trial Court may take appropriate action in accordance with law if the appellant breaches bail conditions.

The Court considered that it had already granted the appellant bail for the BNS offence, but the appellant had been unable to furnish sureties because the SC/ST Act provision was subsequently added.

It also noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

In view of those circumstances, the Court concluded that bail was warranted, without setting out a separate assessment of the competing accounts or the evidence in detail.

Bail was subject to a bond of ₹5,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regular court appearances, and conditions prohibiting interference with the victim’s family, absconding, or tampering with evidence or witnesses; breach could result in appropriate action under law.