The Patna High Court ruled that the SC/ST Act cannot block anticipatory bail when caste-based abuse is not alleged to have occurred in public view. Finding the dispute purely civil, the Court granted protection to the accused.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: The Patna High Court has ruled that allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, cannot automatically prevent the grant of anticipatory bail when the factual foundation for such offences is missing. The Court observed that the dispute at hand primarily concerned a land-purchase transaction, with no clear indication that the alleged caste-based abuse occurred in public view, which is a statutory requirement for attracting the offence.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed the order.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged at the Bhojpur SC/ST Police Station (Case No. 25 of 2024). According to the complainant, an advance payment of ₹4,50,000 was handed over for the purchase of land, followed by a cheque of ₹50,000 that was later dishonoured. The failure to complete the transaction allegedly led to a confrontation where caste-related slurs and threats were said to have been hurled.
However, the High Court noted that:
- The FIR does not mention who received the advance payment or how it was transferred, and
- The allegations of caste-based insult do not assert that they took place in public view.
These gaps, the Court held, make it unsafe to form a prima facie view of an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Arguments Presented
Defense Arguments
- The appellant was falsely implicated and no proof existed to show to whom or how the payment was made.
- No documents or evidence linked the appellant directly to the transaction.
- The FIR did not mention that the alleged caste-based abuses occurred “in public view”, meaning the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie satisfied.
Prosecution Arguments
- The FIR allegations constituted cognizable offences, and anticipatory bail should therefore be declined.
- However, the prosecution was unable to counter the factual inconsistencies highlighted by the defense.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh emphasized that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 2015, generally bars the use of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the statute. However, the High Court stressed that this bar becomes operational only if the FIR discloses a prima facie offence under the Act.
Justice Singh relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in:
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) — which set out the broader principles governing anticipatory bail.
- Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) — which clarified that anticipatory bail is not prohibited where the foundational ingredients of an SC/ST offence are absent.
The Court held:
“The case is purely civil in nature and it appears that the alleged incident of abusing and threatening by using casteist slur has not taken place in public view. The allegations against the appellant are vague and without relevant details.”
The Bench also found no material suggesting that granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation or obstruct justice.
Finding the prosecution’s narrative “vague” and lacking material that would justify custodial interrogation, the Court observed that the core of the dispute resembled a civil disagreement over land and money rather than an atrocity based on caste identity.
The High Court set aside the order of the Special Judge, SC/ST, Bhojpur, which had earlier refused pre-arrest bail. The appellant has now been granted anticipatory bail subject to:
- surrender or arrest within three weeks, and
- furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties.
Case Title:
Lal Babu Yadav @ Lal Kishore Yadav Versus The State of Bihar & Other
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1108 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act