Karnataka HC Grants Bail In SC/ST Act Case After Charge Sheet; Says Mere Registration Of Other Cases Is Not Enough To Deny Bail

The appellant was arrested in Crime No. 251 of 2026, registered on a complaint by Respondent No. 2, for alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

His application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was rejected by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, on 22 September 2026; he appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

The complainant opposed bail, citing the appellant’s alleged antecedents, risk of witness tampering and potential for renewed provocation.

By the time the appeal was considered, the charge sheet had been filed for offences under Sections 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act; the Court noted that the appellant was no longer required for further investigation.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which provides an appellate remedy against an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, including an order refusing bail.

The bail application before the trial Court was made under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, which it noted were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the appellant’s custody, and the status of the investigation.

It also referred generally to the decisions relied on by counsel, without identifying or setting out a specific precedent as the basis of its holding.

The Court considered that the alleged offences were not punishable by death or imprisonment for life and that the charge sheet had been filed, so the appellant was not required for further investigation.

It held that the mere registration of other cases, without convictions, was not by itself a ground to refuse bail.

Having considered the nature and gravity of the offences and the parties’ submissions, the Court concluded that bail was appropriate, while imposing conditions to address concerns about witness interference and repetition of similar offences.

The appellant was directed to be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to conditions that he not tamper with or threaten prosecution witnesses and not commit similar offences.

The State or victim may apply to the trial Court for cancellation of bail if a condition is breached; the Court must first provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard.