The Allahabad High Court set aside a bail rejection order in a case involving allegations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the appellant was merely a marginal witness in a fabricated sale deed dispute and had no previous criminal history. The Court emphasized the need to distinguish civil disputes from criminal offences while granting bail.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The appellant, Subrati Ali, was implicated in Case Crime No. 372 of 2024 registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Antoo, District Pratapgarh. The case arose from allegations of a fabricated sale deed involving co-accused Mohd. Haroon.
Key Facts
- The informant, who was residing in Mumbai, came into contact with co-accused Mohd. Haroon in 2007 regarding the purchase of a plot of land.
- The informant transferred Rs. 2,70,000 to Mohd. Haroon on 19.11.2017 for the purchase of the plot.
- The informant was continuously provided information about the property by Mohd. Haroon until 02.09.2019, when he contacted Mohd. Haroon for financial assistance but was chased away.
- The informant later discovered that a fabricated sale deed had been executed on 20.02.2018 at the instance of Mohd. Haroon and co-accused.
- Another sale deed was presented on 21.03.2019 and registered on 01.02.2019.
- The appellant was described in the FIR and the statement of the informant under Section 180 BNSS as a marginal witness with no direct role in the alleged offence.
Procedural History
- 02.04.2026: Appellant was arrested and incarcerated.
- 15.04.2026: Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, rejected the appellant's bail application (Bail Application No. 922/2026).
- Criminal Appeal No. 3984 of 2025 filed by co-accused Mohd. Haroon was allowed by the Allahabad High Court on 06.04.2026.
- Criminal Appeal No. 2143 of 2025 filed by co-accused Jamil Ahmad was also allowed by the Allahabad High Court on 17.02.2026.
- 21.07.2026: Present Criminal Appeal No. 1241 of 2026 filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act to challenge the bail rejection order.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- The appellant was falsely implicated and had no previous criminal history.
- The FIR and the statement of the informant clearly placed the entire allegation on co-accused Mohd. Haroon.
- The appellant was merely a marginal witness with no role in the fabrication of the sale deed.
- The co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court in separate appeals.
For the Respondent
- The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the FIR and the statement of the informant indicated the appellant's complicity as a marginal witness in the fabricated sale deed.
- It was admitted that the appellant had no previous criminal history but argued that the allegations warranted continued incarceration.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought the setting aside of the bail rejection order dated 15.04.2026 and his release on bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2024 with stringent conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appellant, described as a marginal witness in the FIR and the informant's statement, could be denied bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 solely on the ground of being a party to a fabricated document, despite no direct role in the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had been falsely implicated and was merely a marginal witness in the dispute, which was essentially a civil matter involving fabricated sale deeds. The counsel relied on the fact that co-accused Mohd. Haroon and Jamil Ahmad had already been granted bail by the High Court in separate appeals, indicating that the appellant's role was peripheral. The appellant had no previous criminal history and had been incarcerated since 02.04.2026, with the trial only at its inception.
For the Respondent
The State's counsel opposed the appeal, submitting that the FIR and the statement of the informant under Section 180 BNSS indicated the appellant's complicity as a marginal witness in the fabrication of the sale deed. The State argued that the allegations warranted continued incarceration, despite the appellant's lack of criminal history.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the FIR and the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 BNSS, noting that the entire gist of the allegations pertaining to the fabrication of the sale deed was levelled against co-accused Mohd. Haroon. The role of the appellant was described as that of a marginal witness with no direct involvement in the offence. The Court observed that the appellant had no previous criminal history and had been incarcerated since 02.04.2026, with the trial only at its inception.
The Court emphasized the need to distinguish civil disputes from criminal offences, particularly in cases involving fabricated documents. It noted that the validity of the sale deed was yet to be tested by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and the appellant's role was merely that of a marginal witness.
"The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record."
The Court held that the bail rejection order was unsustainable and set it aside, directing the release of the appellant on bail subject to stringent conditions.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 15.04.2026, and directed the release of the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2024 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount. The Court imposed the following conditions:
- The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
- The appellant shall not pressurize or intimidate prosecution witnesses.
- The appellant shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer.
- The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default, the trial court may treat it as abuse of liberty of bail.
- The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- In case the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fabricated Documents Do Not Automatically Imply Criminal Liability
- Courts must carefully examine the role ascribed to each accused in the FIR and statements.
- Marginal witnesses or peripheral roles in civil disputes should not be denied bail solely on the ground of being a party to a fabricated document.
- The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences must be maintained to prevent misuse of criminal law.
Bail Jurisprudence in Atrocities Cases
- The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must be applied with caution, ensuring that civil disputes are not criminalized.
- Courts should consider the absence of criminal history, the role of the accused, and the stage of trial while deciding bail applications.
- Stringent bail conditions must be imposed to ensure the presence of the accused during trial and prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Prosecution Must Distinguish Roles Clearly
- Prosecution must clearly distinguish the roles of co-accused in cases involving multiple accused.
- Fabricated documents alone do not establish criminal liability unless the accused is shown to have played a direct role in the offence.
- Courts must ensure that bail is not denied arbitrarily, especially in cases where the accused has no criminal history and is merely a marginal witness.
