Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not bar bail where allegations lack a prima facie atrocity offence.

The appellant challenged the order dated 25 March 2026 by which the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch rejected his application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The case arose from FIR C.R. No.11199011260002 of 2026 registered at Bharuch Rural Police Station for offences under Sections 79, 115(2), 117(1), 118(2), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 189(4), 191(1)–(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had made a caste-based slur against witness Varshaben. No other specific role was attributed to him.

The appellant had been in custody since 16 January 2026, and the investigation was complete with the chargesheet having been filed.

The appeal was filed under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and considered the appellant’s claim for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It applied the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, while also considering the risk of tampering with evidence, misuse of liberty and evasion of trial.

Relying on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Court held that the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not apply where the alleged conduct does not prima facie satisfy the statutory ingredients of an offence under that Act.

It further relied on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, concerning the principles governing bail, and Ramesh Batubhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLR 1150, for the principle that similarly situated accused may receive bail on the ground of parity.

The Court found that the appellant’s alleged role was confined to making a caste-based slur against one witness, with no further specific overt act attributed to him.

Since the investigation had concluded and the chargesheet had been filed, no recovery or discovery was required from the appellant, reducing the justification for continued custodial detention.

Applying Hitesh Verma, the Court held that the alleged conduct did not attract the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act at the stage of bail.

The Court also noted that the appellant had no past criminal antecedents and that a co-accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench, thereby supporting the appellant’s claim of parity.

Although the State alleged risks of non-appearance and evidence tampering, the Court considered those concerns capable of being addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

The Sessions Court’s order dated 25 March 2026 rejecting bail was quashed and set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released on regular bail upon execution of a personal bond of ₹15,000 with one surety of the like amount.

The release was subject to conditions including surrender of passport, obtaining permission before leaving India, monthly police-station attendance for six months, disclosure and maintenance of residential address, non-interference with the prosecution, and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments.

The authorities were directed to release the appellant only if he was not required in any other case, and breach of the conditions could result in appropriate action, including issuance of a warrant.

The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in the bail order.