The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of the nature of the offence under the SC/ST Act when the investigating officer admits no evidence connects the accused to the crime. This decision underscores the primacy of evidentiary substance over presumptive severity in bail adjudication.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Arjun Ram S/o Hunata Ram, aged 31, resident of Dikhnada Baas, Moondsar, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 18/2025 registered at Police Station Napasar. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 238(a), and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to the alleged assault and death of Jetha Ram, a member of a Scheduled Tribe.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred on or about 10.01.2025 at Moondsar, District Bikaner
- The appellant was arrested on 15.01.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then
- P.W.-13, Parth Sharma, the Investigating Officer, deposed during trial that no concrete evidence was found linking the appellant to the infliction of injuries upon the deceased
- P.W.-13 further stated that the appellant was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time and was instead in Bikaner
- The complainant, Raju Ram S/o Gidha Ram, is the father of the deceased
- Co-accused Laluram S/o Rekha Ram was granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court on 07.05.2026 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 508/2026
- The complainant’s counsel submitted that a compromise had been reached between the parties
Procedural History
- 10.01.2025: Alleged incident occurred
- 15.01.2025: Arrest of appellant; FIR No. 18/2025 registered
- 23.01.2026: Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner, rejected the appellant’s bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
- 07.05.2026: Co-accused Laluram granted bail by coordinate Bench of Rajasthan HC
- 19.05.2026: Present appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging the bail rejection order
Relief Sought
The appellant sought bail on the grounds that no evidence linked him to the offence, he was not present at the scene, and the co-accused had already been released. He also requested that the bail order be passed with reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied under the SC/ST Act when the Investigating Officer explicitly admits in deposition that no evidence connects the accused to the alleged offence and establishes an alibi.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer, P.W.-13, had unequivocally stated during trial that no evidence of the appellant’s involvement had surfaced. It was further contended that the appellant was not present at the scene of occurrence and was in Bikaner at the relevant time. Reliance was placed on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case. The fact that the co-accused had been granted bail by a coordinate Bench was cited as persuasive precedent. Counsel also noted that the complainant’s counsel did not oppose bail, having reached a compromise.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the offences under the SC/ST Act are serious and involve social stigma, and that granting bail in such cases could undermine public confidence in the Act’s enforcement. No specific counter-evidence was adduced to rebut the Investigating Officer’s testimony.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the grant of bail is governed by the principle of proportionality and the requirement of a prima facie case. It noted that the Investigating Officer’s deposition, being a neutral and official record, carries substantial weight in bail proceedings. The Court observed:
"...the Investigating Officer admitted that no evidence regarding assault by the present petitioner came on record during investigation and that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence."
The Court held that the absence of any incriminating material against the appellant, coupled with the corroborative alibi and the admission by the investigating authority, negated the foundation for continued custody. The Court declined to speculate on the merits of the case, stating that bail decisions must be based on the evidentiary posture at the pre-trial stage, not on the gravity of the charge alone. It further noted that the complainant’s counsel had no objection to bail, indicating a de facto resolution of the dispute. The Court distinguished this case from those involving active conspiracy, witness intimidation, or destruction of evidence, none of which were alleged here.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The order dated 23.01.2026 rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant, Arjun Ram S/o Hunata Ram, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon. The bail conditions are effective immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigating Officer’s Admission Can Defeat Bail Denial
- Practitioners must highlight any admission by the Investigating Officer that no incriminating evidence exists against the accused
- Such admissions, even if made during trial, are admissible for bail purposes under Section 483 BNSS
- Courts cannot ignore neutral, official testimony that undermines the prosecution’s case
Compromise and Co-Accused Bail Are Relevant Factors
- A compromise between parties, even in SC/ST cases, is a material consideration for bail
- Grant of bail to co-accused by a coordinate Bench creates a strong persuasive precedent
- Courts must avoid inconsistent bail outcomes within the same case
Gravity of Offence Alone Is Insufficient for Denial
- The seriousness of offences under the SC/ST Act does not override the requirement of a prima facie case
- Bail cannot be withheld merely because the statute carries social weight
- The evidentiary threshold remains the same regardless of the statute invoked
