Hostile material witnesses and prolonged trial constituted changed circumstances warranting bail under the SC/ST Act.

The appellant was arrested on 2 May 2025 in connection with Crime No. 152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Morena, for offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, during a rally on 14 April 2025, the accused persons stopped the complainant and others, used caste-related abuses, and fired shots.

Co-accused Girraj Gurjar allegedly caused a fatal firearm injury to Sanjay Jatav, while Ranu Jatav sustained injuries; Dharmveer and another co-accused were also alleged to have fired shots.

The Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena, dismissed the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) on 28 July 2026.

The appellant’s earlier first appeal had been dismissed on merits and the second had been withdrawn.

In the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant contended that material witnesses, including eyewitnesses, the complainant and the injured witness, had been examined and had turned hostile.

He further submitted that the only allegation against him was that he fired in the air, without causing any injury, that investigation was complete, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The victim was stated to have been informed in compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the dismissal of his earlier bail appeals?

Whether the subsequent examination of the material prosecution witnesses, who allegedly turned hostile, constituted a material change in circumstances warranting interference with the order refusing bail?

Whether the appellant’s continued custody was justified when investigation had been completed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time?

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides a statutory appellate remedy against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court under the Act.

It considered the bail power under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court also took into account Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act concerning the victim’s right to notice and participation in proceedings, noting that the victim had been informed of the appeal.

In determining bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the evidentiary position after examination of material witnesses, the period of custody, completion of investigation, likelihood of delay in trial, and the risk of tampering or absconding.

The Court found that the evidentiary position had materially changed after the earlier bail proceedings because the material prosecution witnesses, including eyewitnesses and the injured witness, had been examined and had not supported the prosecution case.

The Court also considered the appellant’s submission that the allegation against him was limited to firing in the air and that no injury was attributed to his act.

Since the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary; the appellant had also remained in custody since 2 May 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s opposition, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, together with one solvent surety for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was made subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.