The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that even in cases involving serious allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of the nature of the offence. The Court emphasized that cooperation with investigation, absence of flight risk, and procedural fairness must inform bail decisions under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Ramesh Dhakad and others, were named in Crime No. 198/2025 registered at Police Station Fatehgar, District Guna, for alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, along with related provisions under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The complainant alleged caste-based harassment and violence. The appellants deny all allegations, asserting they were falsely implicated without any caste-related abuse or violent conduct.
Procedural History
- 13 November 2025: Appellants received a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and appeared before the police, cooperating fully in the initial investigation.
- No charge sheet notification: Appellants were not informed of the filing of the charge sheet, preventing their appearance before the trial court.
- 17 January 2026: Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Guna, dismissed their anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS.
- 29 January 2026: Criminal Appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought anticipatory bail on grounds of innocence, prior cooperation with police, no likelihood of absconding, and willingness to comply with all court conditions. They requested release on personal bond with surety, subject to conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS can be denied in cases under the SC/ST (P.A.) Act merely because of the gravity of the alleged offences, or whether the court must apply the triple test - nature of accusation, likelihood of absconding, and possibility of tampering with evidence - regardless of the statute involved.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the appellants had already demonstrated cooperation by responding to Section 41-A notice and had no history of evasion. They emphasized that no caste-based slurs were recorded in the FIR, and the allegations lacked specific corroborative evidence. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to assert that gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail. The appellants undertook to appear before the court and comply with all conditions.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor contended that offences under the SC/ST (P.A.) Act are heinous and require strict deterrent measures. He argued that the nature of the allegations - particularly under Section 3(1)(r) (intentionally insulting with intent to humiliate) and Section 3(2)(va) (intentionally interfering with access to public places) - demanded custodial interrogation. He submitted that the Special Judge’s refusal was consistent with the legislative intent behind the Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that the SC/ST (P.A.) Act creates an absolute bar to anticipatory bail. It observed that while the Act is protective in nature, it does not override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court noted that the appellants had not only responded to the Section 41-A notice but had also not attempted to evade the investigation. The absence of any prior criminal record and the lack of evidence suggesting witness tampering or destruction of evidence weighed heavily in their favour.
"The fact that the accused have cooperated with the investigation from the outset and have not attempted to abscond negates any presumption of flight risk. Denial of bail on the mere basis of the statute invoked would render the safeguards under Section 482 otiose."
The Court further clarified that Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, which mandates notice to the victim of bail applications, had been complied with. It held that the Special Judge erred in treating the seriousness of the allegations as a conclusive ground for denial, without applying the triple test. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule, jail is the exception, even in sensitive cases.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including personal bond of ₹50,000 each with a solvent surety, mandatory appearance within fifteen days, and compliance with all investigative and trial obligations. The order remains valid until the conclusion of trial, subject to breach.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cooperation with Investigation Overrides Presumptions
- Practitioners must highlight prior compliance with Section 41-A notices as strong evidence of non-absconding intent.
- Courts must record specific reasons for denying bail where accused have cooperated - mere invocation of SC/ST Act is insufficient.
Bail Conditions Must Be Tailored, Not Standardized
- The Court’s conditions - fresh bond upon charge sheet filing, witness protection clauses, and compliance with Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 BNSS - set a new benchmark for structured anticipatory bail.
- Practitioners should draft proposed conditions proactively to demonstrate client’s willingness to comply.
Legislative Intent Does Not Override Constitutional Safeguards
- The judgment reaffirms that Article 21 and Section 482 BNSS apply uniformly, even in statutes with punitive intent.
- No statute can create an automatic bar to bail; courts must conduct individualized assessment of risk factors.
