Conditional bail granted in an SC/ST Act case despite village tensions, considering settlement and the complainant’s no-objection.

The appellants were charged in connection with a clash following a Kabaddi match on 13 September 2026.

The prosecution alleged that they abused members of the Scheduled Caste community by referring to their caste, pelted stones at them, attempted to cause their deaths, and threatened them; the injured persons received hospital treatment.

The case was registered under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 192(2), 191(3), 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The appellants appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act read with Section 415(2) of the BNSS against the Special Court’s refusal of bail.

They relied on the counter-case, bail granted to the accused in that case, the injured persons’ discharge, and an asserted settlement.

The complainant’s counsel did not oppose bail, while the State opposed it on the ground that tension persisted between the villages.

Whether the appellants should be granted bail in the appeal, having regard to the allegations under the BNS and SC/ST (PoA) Act and the circumstances presented by the parties.

Whether bail should be refused because tension allegedly persisted between the villages, notwithstanding the complainant’s stated lack of objection and the other circumstances relied on by the appellants.

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, read with Section 415(2) of the BNSS, was invoked as the basis for the criminal appeal against the Special Court’s order.

The charged offences included the specified BNS provisions, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The judgment does not set out a distinct statutory bail test; it assesses the circumstances presented, including the nature of the incident, antecedents, medical status of the injured, the counter-case and its bail order, the complainant’s position, and the reported village tension.

It cites P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2005 SC 100, for the direction that the police may seek cancellation of bail before the trial court if a bail condition is violated.

The Court weighed the State’s concern about continuing village tension against the appellants’ submissions that the injured persons had been discharged, the accused in the counter-case had received bail, and the dispute had been settled; the complainant’s counsel also did not oppose release.

Taking account of those circumstances and the absence of previous bad antecedents, the Court concluded that bail was appropriate, but imposed restrictive conditions in response to the reported tension.

For violation of any condition, the respondent police were directed to move the trial court for cancellation of bail, in accordance with P.K. Shaji.