SC/ST Act Bail | Hostile Witness & Lack of Direct Allegation Justify Relief Under Section 14-A(2) : MP HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent order in Bade alias Harishankar Kushwaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh underscores the delicate balance between protecting marginalized communities under the SC/ST Act and ensuring fair bail considerations when direct allegations against an accused are absent. The Court granted bail to an appellant charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and the SC/ST Act, highlighting the complainant's hostile testimony and the lack of specific allegations linking the appellant to the fatal gunshot injury.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Bade alias Harishankar Kushwaha, was arrested on 25.04.2025 in connection with FIR/Crime No. 241 of 2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, as well as Sections 3(1)(DA), 3(1)(DHA), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case arose from an incident where the deceased, Subhash, was allegedly assaulted by four named persons, including the appellant, and two-three unnamed individuals.

Key Facts

• The FIR alleged that the deceased was assaulted by multiple individuals, with co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha specifically accused of inflicting a gunshot injury.
• The appellant was implicated based on statements from the complainant Santosh (father of the deceased) and other family members.
• During the trial, the complainant turned hostile in April 2026 and did not support the prosecution's version against the appellant.
• The gunshot injury, which was the focal point of the assault, was not attributed to the appellant but to co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha.

Procedural History

• 25.04.2025: Appellant arrested and taken into custody.
• FIR/Crime No. 241/2025 registered under the aforementioned provisions.
• Second Bail Application No. 01 of 2026 filed before the trial court, which was dismissed on 15.04.2026.
• Criminal Appeal No. 3817 of 2026 filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench.
• 10.06.2026: High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought bail on the grounds that:

• The complainant had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case against him.
• The gunshot injury, the most serious allegation, was not attributed to him but to a co-accused.
• He had been in custody since 25.04.2025, and continued detention was unjustified in the absence of direct evidence.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether bail could be granted under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act when:

1. The complainant had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's version against the appellant.
2. The most serious allegation (gunshot injury) was not attributed to the appellant but to a co-accused.
3. The appellant had been in prolonged custody without direct evidence linking him to the fatal injury.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's version in the FIR implicated four named persons, including the appellant, but the gunshot injury was specifically attributed to co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha.
• The complainant (father of the deceased) and other witnesses had turned hostile during the trial, weakening the case against the appellant.
• The appellant had been in custody for over a year without any direct evidence linking him to the fatal injury, making his continued detention unjustified.

For the Respondent/State

• The State opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that the complainant had turned hostile and that the gunshot injury was not attributed to the appellant.
• The State relied on the gravity of the offences under the SC/ST Act and BNS to argue against bail.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court, while granting bail, emphasized the following key considerations:

1. Hostile Witness Testimony: The Court noted that the complainant, who was the father of the deceased, had turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution's version against the appellant. This significantly weakened the case against the appellant.

   "The actual allegation of firing gunshot injury is on the co-accused Jeetu and not on the present appellant. Even Complainant who is father of deceased has since been examined before the trial Court in April 2026 has turned hostile and has not supported prosecution version as against the present appellant."

2. Absence of Direct Allegation: The Court observed that the gunshot injury, which was the most serious allegation, was not attributed to the appellant but to co-accused Jeetu Kushwaha. This absence of direct evidence linking the appellant to the fatal injury was a critical factor in granting bail.

3. Prolonged Custody: The appellant had been in custody since 25.04.2025, and the Court took note of the duration of incarceration in the absence of direct evidence against him.

4. Stringent Bail Conditions: While granting bail, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the appellant's compliance with the legal process and to prevent any interference with witnesses or further offences. These conditions included:

   • Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.
   • Non-inducement of witnesses: The appellant was prohibited from extending any inducement, threat, or promise to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts.
   • Cooperation in trial: The appellant was required to cooperate in the trial and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
   • Restrictions on movement: The appellant was barred from moving in the vicinity of the complainant's residence or contacting the complainant party.
   • Non-involvement in criminal activity: The appellant was prohibited from involving himself in any criminal activity, failing which the bail would be revoked.

The Verdict

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant, Bade alias Harishankar Kushwaha, subject to the following:

• The appellant was to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.
• The bail was granted subject to strict conditions, including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation in the trial, and restrictions on movement and contact with the complainant party.
• The benefit of bail would be immediately withdrawn if the appellant violated any of the conditions or involved himself in criminal activity.
• A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance and information.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Hostile Witnesses Weaken Prosecution's Case

• This judgment reinforces that hostile witness testimony can significantly weaken the prosecution's case, especially in offences under special statutes like the SC/ST Act.
• Practitioners should closely scrutinize witness statements during trial to identify inconsistencies or retractions that could impact bail considerations.

Direct Allegation Is Crucial for Continued Detention

• The Court's decision highlights that continued detention is unjustified when the most serious allegation is not directly attributed to the accused.
• Defence counsel should emphasize the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the core offence to argue for bail.

Stringent Bail Conditions Under SC/ST Act

• While Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act imposes restrictions on bail, this judgment shows that courts may grant bail when the prosecution's case is weakened by hostile witnesses or lack of direct evidence.
• However, bail under the SC/ST Act is likely to come with stringent conditions, including restrictions on movement, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation in trial. Practitioners must ensure compliance with these conditions to avoid revocation of bail.