SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v) Applies Only to Underlying Offences Punishable by Ten Years or More.

The complainant, a Scheduled Tribe woman, alleged that the appellant posted a derogatory comment about her on Facebook, intending to tarnish her reputation and knowing her community status.

Police registered Crime No. 157/2026 under Sections 79 and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

After the Special Judge rejected his anticipatory-bail application, the appellant appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, seeking relief under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

1. Whether the alleged offences under Sections 79 and 296 of the BNS attracted Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, where neither offence was punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more.

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail and relief from the Special Judge’s order rejecting his application.

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, as described by the Court, applies where a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe commits an offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more against a person or property, knowing that the person or property belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; the provision prescribes imprisonment for life and fine.

Section 79 of the BNS concerns words, gestures or acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty and carries imprisonment of up to three years and fine; Section 296 concerns obscene acts and songs and carries imprisonment of up to three months, a fine, or both.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the offences alleged in the FIR and observed that the maximum punishments under Sections 79 and 296 of the BNS were below ten years.

It therefore held that the threshold described in Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not met, notwithstanding the allegation that the appellant knew the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.

On that basis, it set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail.

It directed that, if arrested, the appellant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one local surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions specified in the judgment.