President of educational society granted bail based on parity and lack of specific naming in FIR.

The appellant challenged an order dated 23/05/2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, which rejected his regular bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The case originates from a private complaint alleging a scholarship scam where fraudulent admissions were shown at Rishikul College to embezzle funds.

The appellant, arrested on 21/05/2026, was implicated as the President of the society running the college.

The prosecution alleged that officials from the college and the Tribal Welfare Department conspired to open fake bank accounts and disburse scholarship amounts into them.

The appellant contended he was not named in the FIR, no scholarship funds were traced to him, and he was implicated solely due to his official position.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act, read with Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the principle of parity and the nature of his involvement.

2. Whether the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out where the alleged act was not committed solely on the ground that the victim is a member of a protected community.

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court relied on the principle of parity in bail, as several co-accused with specific allegations had already been granted bail by coordinate benches.

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, noting that the offense must be committed against a person knowing such person is a member of a SC/ST community.

The Court observed that the appellant had been in custody since May 2021 and that custodial interrogation was complete.

Significantly, the court noted that the appellant was not named in the initial private complaint or the FIR, and his implication was primarily based on his administrative role as President of the Society.

The Court found merit in the argument that specific allegations of forgery and disbursement were levelled against other officials (Director, Kiosk Operator, and Departmental Accountants) who had already been enlarged on bail between 2019 and 2021.

Additionally, the court took into account that the trial was likely to take a long time and the appellant had no criminal antecedents.

The Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The relief was granted on conditions including cooperation with the trial, no tampering with evidence, and a prohibition on leaving the country without permission.