The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where the prosecution failed to establish any evidence of instigation or abetment leading to suicide. The order underscores that mere association with the deceased, without concrete proof of criminal intent or conduct, cannot justify continued custody pending trial.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The High Court granted bail to the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the absence of evidence establishing instigation or abetment of suicide negates the necessity for pre-trial detention. The court directed release on a personal bond of Rs.70,000 with one solvent surety, subject to strict conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses.
Background & Facts
The appellant, Reena Saket, was arrested on 2 December 2025 in connection with FIR No.545 of 2025 registered at Police Station Amiliya, District Sidhi. The case arose from the suicide of a person allegedly linked to an illicit relationship with the appellant and another accused. The FIR invoked Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(2)(v) criminalizes the act of causing the suicide of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by instigation.
The prosecution’s case hinges on the assertion that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. However, the case diary and submissions revealed no direct evidence of threats, harassment, or verbal instigation. The co-accused is absconding, and the investigation remains incomplete. The charge sheet has not been filed, and the trial is unlikely to commence in the near future. The appellant has been in custody since 2 December 2025.
The appellant filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which was rejected by the Special Judge. This appeal followed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the absence of prima facie evidence of instigation under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act justifies denial of bail, or whether continued detention is permissible solely on the basis of the nature of the offence and the status of the victim.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution had not adduced any material to establish the essential ingredient of instigation under Section 3(2)(v). Mere existence of a relationship, without proof of coercive or provocative conduct, cannot sustain a charge under the Act. The investigation was nearly complete, and no further custodial interrogation was required. The appellant was willing to comply with all bail conditions and posed no flight risk. Reliance was placed on precedents holding that bail should not be denied merely because an offence is covered under a special statute, especially where the evidence does not prima facie establish guilt.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail on the ground that offences under the SC/ST Act are serious and attract strong public interest. The nature of the offence, involving suicide of a member of a Scheduled Caste, warranted strict scrutiny. The State contended that granting bail in such cases could undermine deterrence and send a wrong signal to the community. No specific counter-evidence was presented to refute the absence of instigation, but the argument rested on the presumption of seriousness inherent in the statute.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that while the SC/ST Act is a protective legislation, its provisions must be applied with strict adherence to evidentiary requirements. The court noted that Section 3(2)(v) requires proof of active instigation leading to suicide, not mere association or emotional entanglement. The absence of any statement, witness, or document indicating threats, harassment, or pressure exerted by the appellant rendered the charge speculative.
"The mere fact that a person was in a relationship with the deceased does not, by itself, constitute instigation within the meaning of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution must establish a direct causal link between the accused’s conduct and the act of suicide."
The Court distinguished this case from those where there is evidence of verbal abuse, public humiliation, or economic coercion. Here, the investigation had not yielded any such material. The court further held that the pendency of trial and the absence of a charge sheet weighed in favor of bail, as custodial detention cannot be prolonged indefinitely without formal charges.
The Court also rejected the notion that the status of the victim alone justifies denial of bail. While the Act mandates stringent treatment, it does not suspend the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in cases under special statutes, provided the conditions for release are met.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment clarifies that in cases under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, bail cannot be denied solely on the ground that the offence involves a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. The prosecution must demonstrate a prima facie case of instigation. Absent such evidence, courts must apply the same bail jurisprudence applicable under general criminal law.
Practitioners should now focus on challenging the sufficiency of evidence at the bail stage, particularly where the charge rests on circumstantial or relational links without direct proof of coercive conduct. This ruling reinforces that the burden of establishing instigation lies squarely on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused.
Future bail applications under the SC/ST Act should be supported by detailed affidavits highlighting the absence of incriminating material in the case diary or charge sheet. Courts are now expected to scrutinize the evidentiary foundation before denying liberty, even in sensitive cases.
The conditions imposed - non-interference with witnesses, no adjournment-seeking, and no travel abroad - are standard but now carry heightened weight in cases under special statutes.
