Man Accused Of Caste Abuse Against SC Woman Gets Bail; Madras HC Cites Earlier Marriage-Promise Complaint

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, aged 32, had a physical relationship with a 33-year-old woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, who became pregnant and later delivered a stillborn child. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant and his parents abused her by using her caste name.

The judgment records that the complainant had made an earlier complaint alleging that the appellant promised to marry her and that she had aborted a pregnancy to facilitate the marriage; the Court considered the later complaint to contain improvements, including the addition of allegations under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and the appellant’s parents as accused.

The appellant surrendered and was remanded to custody on 12 October 2026.

The Special Court declined bail, and the appellant appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

The judgment contains inconsistent crime-number and date references: the appeal prayer refers to Crime No. 68 of 2026, while the body and operative directions refer variously to Crime No. 15 of 2024 and Crime No. 15 of 2026.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the Special Court’s order refusing bail.

The Court also referred to the appellant’s earlier petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking protection from alleged police harassment; that provision was not identified as the basis for the bail decision.

The judgment cites no precedent or express test governing bail under the SC/ST (PoA) Act; it rests its decision on the case-specific allegations, the earlier complaint, and the asserted suppression and improvements in the subsequent complaint.

The Court considered the earlier complaint, which it understood to allege a promise of marriage and an abortion, against the later complaint alleging caste-based offences and implicating the appellant’s parents.

It viewed the later complaint as containing improvements and noted that investigation against the parents had already been stayed in separate proceedings.

In light of the nature of the allegations and what it characterized as suppression of the earlier complaint, the Court concluded that the appellant should be released on bail.

Bail was conditional on executing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for like sums, providing specified identity documentation for the sureties, and reporting to the police twice daily at 10:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until further orders; the police could seek cancellation of bail upon breach of the conditions.