The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that even in cases involving non-bailable offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, bail may be granted where the investigation is complete, no risk of flight exists, and the prosecution raises no objection to release. This decision reinforces that procedural fairness and proportionality must guide bail decisions, even under stringent statutes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rasid S/o Razak Mohammad, aged 23, was arrested and lodged in District Jail, Churu, following the registration of FIR No. 112/2026 at Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. The FIR alleged offences under Section 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The complainant is Shri Nanuram S/o Babulal Meghwal.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred prior to the registration of FIR on an unspecified date in early 2026
- The FIR was registered on an undisclosed date, but the bail application was filed before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Churu
- The appellant was arrested and remained in custody since 25.05.2026
- All co-accused in the case have been granted bail
- The investigation into the matter has been completed
- The prosecution did not oppose bail on grounds of flight risk or tampering with evidence
Procedural History
- Date of FIR registration: Unspecified, but prior to 25.05.2026
- 25.05.2026: Appellant arrested and lodged in jail; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 157/2026 filed on same day
- 25.05.2026: Trial Court dismissed the bail application
- Date of filing of appeal: Prior to 24.06.2026
- 24.06.2026: Hearing before the High Court; Public Prosecutor submitted report confirming service on complainant
- 24.06.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought bail on the grounds that:
- The offences under the SC/ST Act were alleged only to render the case non-bailable
- All other offences are triable by a Magistrate and are bailable
- Investigation is complete
- No apprehension of fleeing justice
- Co-accused have been released on bail
- He has been in custody since 25.05.2026
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act when the investigation is complete, no risk of flight is demonstrated, and the allegations under the Act appear to be invoked primarily to deny bail, especially when co-accused are already enlarged.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the inclusion of SC/ST Act offences was a procedural tactic to make the case non-bailable, as all other charges under BNS are triable by Magistrates and bailable. He emphasized that the investigation was complete, the appellant had been in custody for nearly a month, and the prosecution had not raised any objection to his release. He cited the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot override the right to liberty when no risk is shown.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not oppose the grant of bail. He submitted a report confirming service upon the complainant and acknowledged that the investigation was complete. No arguments were advanced to resist bail on grounds of flight risk, evidence tampering, or likelihood of reoffending.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the charges and the procedural posture of the case. It noted that while Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act imposes restrictions on bail in cases involving offences under the Act, the provision does not mandate automatic denial. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the Act is to protect vulnerable communities, not to indefinitely detain accused without regard to procedural fairness.
"The investigation is complete and appellant is behind the bars since 25.05.2026. Hence, keeping in view the fact that conclusion of the trial of the case is likely to take time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the appellant fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the appellant."
The Court observed that the co-accused had already been released on bail, undermining any claim of exceptional danger posed by the appellant. It further noted that the prosecution had not raised any objection to bail, and there was no indication of tampering with evidence or witness intimidation. The Court held that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be balanced with the interests of justice, and where no risk is demonstrated, bail must be granted even under stringent statutes.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The High Court set aside the order dated 25.05.2026 dismissing the bail application. The appellant, Rasid S/o Razak Mohammad, is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 112/2026, subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon, until the conclusion of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied Under SC/ST Act
- Practitioners must argue that Section 14-A(2) does not create an absolute bar to bail
- Where investigation is complete and no flight risk is shown, courts must apply proportionality
- Alleging SC/ST Act offences solely to deny bail may be viewed as procedural abuse
Co-Accused Bail Is a Relevant Factor
- If co-accused are granted bail on identical or similar charges, denial to one accused requires strong justification
- Courts must examine parity in treatment under Article 14
- Absence of objection from prosecution strengthens the bail plea
Pre-Trial Custody Duration Matters
- Prolonged custody without trial progress weighs heavily in favour of bail
- Courts must consider the time likely to elapse before trial concludes
- Custody beyond the period of likely sentence may violate Article 21
No Opinion on Merits Required
- Courts may grant bail without evaluating the strength of prosecution evidence
- The standard is risk assessment, not guilt determination
- This preserves the presumption of innocence
