Group-Assault Accused Gets Pre-Arrest Bail As P&H HC Finds No Prima Facie Caste Insult Or Abuse Under SC/ST Act

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his application for anticipatory bail in a case arising from an assault allegedly committed by him and several co-accused against the complainant and his companions.

The FIR initially invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) were added during investigation.

The appellant argued that the FIR contained no caste-based insult or abuse attributable to him, that no specific injury was assigned to him, and that similarly situated co-accused had received anticipatory bail.

The State opposed relief, relying on the alleged assault, danda blows, CCTV footage and the need for recovery and custodial interrogation.

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act respectively penalize intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste in a place within public view, and abuse of such a person by caste name in a place within public view.

The bar under Sections 18 and 18-A does not prevent anticipatory bail where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, as recognized in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454, and affirmed after the insertion of Section 18-A in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727.

The Court also directed compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found no allegation in the FIR or the State’s reply that the appellant had insulted or intimidated the complainant with intent to humiliate him, or abused him by caste name in public view.

The FIR instead attributed the incident to prior enmity; accordingly, no prima facie SC/ST Act offence was shown and the statutory bar did not apply.

As to the remaining offences, the FIR did not specify a weapon, the body part struck or an injury caused by the appellant; the specific sword blows were attributed to co-accused.

The Court also considered the appellant’s omission from portions of the FIR, the bail status of co-accused, the availability of the medical and CCTV evidence, and the State’s admission that the appellant had no other criminal case or outstanding warrant.

It held that recovery could be pursued if he joined the investigation and that concerns about flight or witness influence could be addressed by conditions.

The Court stated that breach of the conditions could be considered by the jurisdictional court on an application for cancellation.

Its observations were confined to the appeal and were not an expression on the merits of the case.