The SC/ST Act’s Section 18 bar does not apply where the alleged offence lacks a caste-based nexus.

The appellant, the deceased’s husband, was accused of subjecting her to harassment and torture that allegedly led to her suicide.

The FIR invoked Sections 108, 115(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After the charge-sheet was filed, the appellant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Sessions Court rejected the application; the appellant appealed under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act.

The appellant relied on completion of the investigation and the release on bail of his mother-in-law, while the State and complainant opposed bail, citing alleged audio and video material and risks of non-appearance and evidence tampering.

Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet, having regard to the allegations, completion of the investigation and the asserted risk of tampering or non-appearance.

Whether the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act applied to the appellant’s bail request.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had been released on bail.

The Court considered the appeal under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act and the regular-bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

It relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, in holding that the Section 18 bar of the Atrocities Act was not applicable in this case; on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, in applying the principles governing bail and pre-trial detention; and on Ramesh Batubhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLR 1150, in considering parity with a bailed co-accused.

The Court also invoked the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and no further recovery or discovery was required from the appellant.

It considered the appellant’s pre-trial detention in light of the bail principles in Sanjay Chandra and concluded that continued custody would amount to pre-trial conviction.

It further held that Section 18 did not bar bail, applying Hitesh Verma, and found parity relevant because the co-accused had been released on bail.

The Court granted bail subject to conditions, including surrendering any passport, not leaving India without permission, monthly police-station attendance for six months, providing and maintaining a residential address, and not delaying the trial through unnecessary adjournments.

Release was conditional on the appellant not being required in another case; the trial court retained power to modify or relax the conditions, and the trial was not to be influenced by the Court’s prima facie observations.