SC/ST Act Bail | Mere Exhortation Without Direct Violent Role Insufficient for Detention : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a bail rejection order under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing that mere exhortation during an incident, without direct involvement in violent acts, does not justify continued detention - especially for a woman with no criminal antecedents. The judgment underscores the need for individualized assessment of roles in criminal proceedings, even in cases involving grave offences.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Indrawati Devi, was accused in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act. The dispute arose from a long-standing conflict over ownership and possession of agricultural land in Jungle Mathiya, Gorakhpur. The prosecution alleged that on 13.11.2025, the appellant, along with co-accused Sonu Singh and Roshan Singh, arrived at the disputed land to harvest paddy. When the complainant’s family objected, the accused allegedly abused them using caste-related remarks and threatened them. Roshan Singh then allegedly drove a tractor over the complainant’s family members, resulting in the death of Vipin Kumar and injuries to others.

Key Facts

• 13.11.2025: First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Phoolmati Devi alleging caste-based abuse and attempted murder
• Incident Date: 13.11.2025 at 10:00 a.m.
• Allegations: The appellant was accused of exhorting co-accused Roshan Singh, who allegedly drove the tractor over the victims
• Victims: Ram Gopal Paswan (injured), Markandeya (injured), Vipin Kumar (deceased), Akhilesh (injured)
• Appellant’s Claim: She was in lawful possession of her share of the land pursuant to partition proceedings and demarcation by revenue authorities
• Prior Complaints: The appellant had filed written complaints alleging assault and misbehaviour by the informant’s family before the incident
• Judicial Custody: The appellant has been in custody since 15.11.2025

Procedural History

• 13.11.2025: FIR lodged (Case Crime No. 576 of 2025)
• 15.11.2025: Appellant arrested and remanded to judicial custody
• Bail Application No. 5946 of 2025: Filed before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur
• 19.12.2025: Bail application rejected by Special Judge
• Criminal Appeal No. 1352 of 2026: Filed before Allahabad High Court challenging the bail rejection
• 04.06.2026: High Court allows the appeal and grants bail

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• The appellant is a woman with no criminal antecedents
• The specific role of driving the tractor and causing injuries was assigned exclusively to co-accused Roshan Singh
• The appellant’s role was limited to exhortation, standing at a distance
• The appellant was in lawful possession of her land share, supported by revenue proceedings and independent witnesses
• The prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the incident, including prior complaints filed by the appellant against the informant’s family
• The appellant sustained injuries during the incident, unexplained by the prosecution
• The investigation was concluded, and charge-sheet had been submitted
• There was no likelihood of the appellant absconding or tampering with evidence

For the Respondent/State

• The appellant actively participated in the incident by exhorting the co-accused
• The incident would not have occurred without the appellant’s exhortation
• One person died, and others sustained injuries, justifying denial of bail

Relief Sought

The appellant sought:

• Setting aside of the impugned bail rejection order dated 19.12.2025
• Release on bail in Case Crime No. 576 of 2025

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether mere exhortation during an incident involving grave offences under the SC/ST Act and BNS, without direct involvement in violent acts, justifies denial of bail - especially when the accused is a woman with no criminal antecedents and the investigation is complete.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• Role Limitation: The appellant’s role was limited to exhortation, with no direct involvement in the violent act of driving the tractor
• False Implication: The appellant was falsely implicated due to a long-standing land dispute
• Lawful Possession: Revenue proceedings and independent witnesses supported her claim of lawful possession
• Prior Complaints: The appellant had filed complaints against the informant’s family before the incident, indicating a counterblast motive
• No Criminal Antecedents: The appellant had no prior criminal history and posed no flight risk
• Judicial Custody: The appellant had been in custody since 15.11.2025, and the investigation was complete

For the Respondent/State

• Active Participation: The appellant’s exhortation was crucial to the incident, and without it, the violence would not have occurred
• Gravity of Offence: The death of one person and injuries to others justified denial of bail

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the role assigned to the appellant, and the broader context of the dispute. Key observations included:

1. Role Differentiation: The specific role of driving the tractor and causing injuries was attributed to co-accused Roshan Singh, while the appellant’s role was limited to exhortation.

2. Land Dispute Context: The incident occurred in the backdrop of a long-standing dispute over land ownership and possession. Revenue proceedings had already taken place, and material on record indicated the appellant’s assertion of her claim over the disputed land.

3. Gender and Antecedents: The appellant is a woman with no criminal history, and she had been in judicial custody since 15.11.2025.

4. Investigation Status: The investigation was concluded, and the charge-sheet had been submitted, reducing concerns about tampering with evidence.

5. Judicial Restraint: The Court emphasized that while the allegations were grave, bail could not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence without considering the appellant’s specific role and circumstances.

"Considering the nature of allegations, the role assigned to the appellant, the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail."

The Court also noted that the appellant’s continued detention would serve no purpose, given the completion of the investigation and the lack of evidence suggesting she would abscond or tamper with evidence.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur. The appellant, Indrawati Devi, was directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 576 of 2025 on furnishing:

• A personal bond of Rs. 50,000
• Two sureties, each in the like amount

The Court imposed the following conditions:

1. The appellant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or harass the victim/complainant
2. She shall attend court on every date and not delay trial proceedings
3. She shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present
4. She shall not misuse the liberty of bail
5. She shall remain present in person for:
   • Opening of the case
   • Framing of charge
   • Recording of statement under Section 251 BNSS
6. The trial court shall expedite the trial

The trial court was directed to verify the sureties’ identities and residential proof. In case of breach of any conditions, the court was empowered to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Exhortation Alone Is Not Sufficient for Denial of Bail

• Individualized Assessment: Courts must assess the specific role of each accused, rather than denying bail based solely on the gravity of the offence. Mere exhortation, without direct involvement in violent acts, may not justify continued detention
• Gender Considerations: The judgment reinforces that women accused, especially those without criminal antecedents, should not be denied bail lightly, even in cases involving grave offences
• Investigation Status: Once the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is submitted, the likelihood of tampering with evidence diminishes, making bail more tenable

Land Disputes and Counterblast Motives

• Context Matters: Courts should consider the broader context of disputes, such as land conflicts, which may lead to false implications
• Prior Complaints: If the accused has filed prior complaints against the informant, courts should scrutinize whether the prosecution is a counterblast to earlier grievances
• Revenue Proceedings: Evidence of revenue proceedings or partition orders supporting the accused’s claim can weaken the prosecution’s case and strengthen bail pleas

Bail Conditions Under BNSS

• Strict Compliance: The judgment outlines detailed bail conditions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), including undertakings not to seek adjournments and mandatory presence during key trial stages
• Consequences of Violation: Non-compliance with bail conditions can lead to proclamation under Section 84 BNSS and proceedings under Section 209 BNS (equivalent to Section 174-A IPC)
• Expeditious Trial: Courts are directed to expedite trials post-bail, ensuring that the accused does not delay proceedings

Practitioners should note that while the SC/ST Act prescribes stringent provisions, bail is not automatically denied if the accused’s role is peripheral and the investigation is complete.