The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not automatically denied merely due to the gravity of allegations, particularly when the complainant does not oppose release. This decision underscores the procedural safeguards available even in cases involving serious statutory offences, provided conditions are strictly enforced.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Zaid Khan, was arrested on 03.01.2026 in connection with FIR No. 113/2025 registered at Police Station Bhalumada, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. The case involves allegations of assault and criminal intimidation under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The alleged incident involved a physical altercation between the appellant, two co-accused, and the complainant, Shivakant Raidas, during which one co-accused, Lala Pashi, allegedly caused a fracture to Shivakant’s parietal bone using a weapon. The appellant’s role, however, is described in the prosecution’s case as an omnibus statement without specific acts attributed to him.
Key Facts
- The complainant, Bheem Prakash Raidas, appeared before the Special Judge and expressed no objection to the appellant’s bail application.
- The appellant is accused in one additional case, which his counsel claims is false and motivated.
- The appellant has been in custody since 03.01.2026.
- The trial is expected to take considerable time due to complexity and witness availability.
- The appellant has offered to comply with all reasonable bail conditions.
Procedural History
- 03.01.2026: Arrest of appellant in connection with FIR No. 113/2025.
- 13.02.2026: Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Anuppur, rejected bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.
- 12.03.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 1885 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought bail on the grounds that the complainant has no objection, the trial will be protracted, and he is willing to comply with stringent conditions. He requested release on personal bond with surety.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted under the SC/ST Act, 1989, when the complainant does not oppose it, despite the seriousness of the allegations and the non-bailable nature of the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has expressly withdrawn his objection to bail, which is a material consideration under Section 439 CrPC and judicial precedents. He emphasized that the appellant’s role in the incident is not specific or direct, as the injury was caused by a co-accused. He further argued that the appellant is ready to comply with all conditions and that prolonged pre-trial detention would violate his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal to support the proposition that bail should not be denied solely on the basis of the nature of the offence when the complainant is not opposed.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor for the State opposed bail, arguing that offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are heinous and attract a presumption of guilt under the Act. He contended that granting bail in such cases could undermine deterrence and public confidence in the protection of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. He also raised concerns about potential witness tampering and the risk of reoffending.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations under the SC/ST Act but emphasized that the Act does not create an absolute bar to bail. It noted that the complainant’s non-opposition is a significant factor in bail jurisprudence, particularly where the accused’s direct involvement is not clearly established. The Court observed that the appellant’s role is described in omnibus terms, and no specific act of violence is attributed to him.
"The fact that the complainant has no objection to the grant of bail cannot be ignored, especially when the accused is willing to comply with stringent conditions."
The Court further held that the right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against the interests of justice, and where conditions can mitigate risks, bail should be granted. It distinguished this case from those involving active, direct violence or threats to witnesses, noting the absence of any allegation against the appellant of intimidation or inducement. The Court also rejected the argument that the mere pendency of a case under the SC/ST Act automatically negates bail, citing K. C. S. v. State of U.P. to affirm that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The appellant was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 70,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount, to be approved by the trial court. He must comply with eight conditions, including fortnightly reporting to the police station, not leaving India without permission, not tampering with witnesses, and not seeking unnecessary adjournments. The order will stand revoked automatically if any condition is violated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Complainant’s Non-Objection Is a Material Factor
- Practitioners must highlight the complainant’s stance in bail applications under the SC/ST Act, even in serious cases.
- Courts are increasingly treating non-opposition as a weighty consideration, especially where the accused’s role is not direct.
- This reduces the risk of automatic denial of bail based solely on the nature of the offence.
Conditions Can Mitigate Risk in Atrocities Cases
- Courts are willing to impose strict, enforceable conditions to balance liberty and public interest.
- Fortnightly police reporting, no-contact orders, and travel restrictions are now standard in such grants.
- Violation of any condition triggers automatic revocation - no separate hearing required.
Omnibus Allegations Do Not Justify Denial of Bail
- Where the accused’s involvement is vague or non-specific, courts may grant bail even under stringent statutes.
- Legal teams should focus on distinguishing the accused’s conduct from that of co-accused in pleadings and affidavits.
- This sets a precedent for cases where multiple accused are named but only one is directly implicated in violence.
