Victim must be given notice before bail is granted in SC/ST Act cases.

The petitioner alleged that respondents 7 and 8 had taken ₹9,39,000 on the promise of arranging a Singapore visa, but did not procure one. He further alleged that respondent 7 refused to repay the money, abused him by referring to his caste, and threatened him.

Police registered Crime No. 151 of 2025 under Sections 296(b) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; following investigation, a charge sheet was taken on file as S.C. No. 26 of 2026.

After respondents 7 and 8 failed to appear, the Special Court issued non-bailable warrants. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the police to transmit the warrant to the Union authorities for processing.

Whether the Court should direct the police to transmit the non-bailable warrant to the Union authorities for processing, as requested by the petitioner.

Whether the requested relief remained necessary after the accused persons’ subsequent surrender and arrest.

The petition invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The criminal case involved the provisions identified above, including Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The judgment states no precedent or specific statutory provision governing transmission of the warrant or the procedure for securing an accused from Singapore.

The Court also directed that the petitioner be put on notice before the Special Court considers granting bail to the first accused, referring to the offence’s engagement of the SC/ST Act.

The Court found that the circumstances underlying the request for assistance in executing the warrant had changed.

The police reported that respondent 8 had surrendered, been remanded, and was appearing regularly before the Special Court; they also reported that respondent 7 had been secured on arrival from Singapore and remanded to judicial custody.

Since both accused had been brought within the court process, the requested transmission of the warrant—and consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the Union authorities—was no longer necessary.

It further directed that the petitioner be put on notice before the Special Court considers granting bail to the first accused.