SC/ST Act Not Attracted for Alleged Offences Committed Inside Building Without Public Presence

The Informant (Respondent No. 2), a Block Co-ordinator in the Drinking and Sanitation Department, alleged that on 02.05.2017, the Appellant, a District Co-ordinator, assaulted her in his office, attempted rape, and used caste-based slurs

An FIR was registered as Ramgarh Mahila P.S. Case No. 05/2017; however, following an investigation, the police submitted a Final Form (No. 05/17) stating the allegations were false

Concurrently, a multi-member inquiry committee, including the Director of DRDA and a Lady Medical Officer, found the allegations baseless, noting that biometric records proved several employees were present at the time, making the alleged crime impossible to commit unnoticed

The Informant subsequently filed a Protest-cum-Complaint Petition (No. 159 of 2018), leading the trial court to take cognizance under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act

The Appellant moved the High Court after his anticipatory bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh

1. Whether the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are attracted when the alleged offense is committed inside a private office building

2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in light of the police’s Final Form and the findings of the administrative inquiry committee

The court primarily applied Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code

It further examined Section 3(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015

The court relied on the legal principles established in Swaran Singh v. State [(2008) 8 SCC 435] and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 10 SCC 710], which mandate that for an offense to be punishable under the SC/ST Act, the act must occur in a "place within public view"

Finally, the court applied the conditions for bail as per Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023

The court observed that the alleged incident occurred inside an office room, which does not satisfy the "public view" requirement essential for an offense under the SC/ST Act as interpreted in Hitesh Verma

The court noted that if a remark or act is made inside a building where only friends or relatives (or in this case, colleagues not in a public setting) are present, it does not constitute a "place within public view"

The court scrutinized the testimonies of the inquiry witnesses (EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3) and found them to be hearsay witnesses rather than direct eyewitnesses

The court highlighted significant discrepancies, such as the Informant's failure to report the matter to senior officials and the administrative inquiry's findings—supported by biometric attendance—that established the presence of other staff members who denied the incident

Given that the police had originally filed a Final Form in favor of the Appellant and the trial court proceeded solely on a protest petition, the court found the grounds for arrest insufficient

The court granted anticipatory bail to the Appellant, Jitendra Kumar Jha, directing him to surrender before the lower court within four weeks

He is to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties, subject to the condition that one bailor must be a relative and the Appellant must comply with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023

The holding clarifies that the SC/ST Act is not applicable to incidents occurring within the four walls of an office without public visibility