The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that accused persons under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are entitled to seek bail in accordance with the Supreme Court’s clarified jurisprudence, even when charges involve serious allegations. In a procedural but significant order, the Court granted the appellants liberty to file a bail application, emphasizing adherence to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and suspending coercive measures pending such filing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present criminal appeal challenges the validity of the charge sheet dated 17.12.2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.09.2024, and all subsequent proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 1017 of 2024, arising from Case Crime No. 0294 of 2023 registered at Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya. The appellants, including Vivek Thakur @ Akash Rajawat, are accused under Sections 323, 504, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), and 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 15.11.2023 under the aforementioned provisions.
- The charge sheet was filed on 17.12.2023.
- Cognizance was taken and summons issued on 17.09.2024 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya.
- The trial court proceedings commenced thereafter under Sessions Trial No. 1017 of 2024.
- No bail application had been decided by the trial court prior to the filing of this appeal.
Procedural History
- 15.11.2023: FIR registered at Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya.
- 17.12.2023: Charge sheet filed by the investigating agency.
- 17.09.2024: Cognizance taken and summoning order issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act).
- 2025: Criminal Appeal No. 2540 of 2025 filed before the Allahabad High Court.
- 27.05.2026: Hearing before the High Court; no appearance by the second respondent.
The Parties' Positions
The appellant, represented by Shri Anurag Shukla, did not contest the factual allegations or challenge the charge sheet on substantive grounds. Instead, he sought procedural relief grounded in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, did not oppose the request.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought liberty to file a bail application before the trial court, with direction to the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law, and a stay on coercive action pending such filing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused under the SC/ST Act, who has not yet had a bail application decided by the trial court, may be granted liberty to file such an application in light of the Supreme Court’s directive in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, and whether coercive action should be suspended pending such filing.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 has laid down clear guidelines for bail in all criminal cases, including those under special statutes like the SC/ST Act. The Court emphasized that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, and that courts must consider the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation, and the likelihood of flight or tampering. He argued that the trial court had not yet adjudicated the bail application, and that the accused were entitled to seek bail under the principles articulated in Satender Kumar Antil. He requested liberty to file the application and a stay on coercive action.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate did not oppose the submission. No counter-arguments were presented on behalf of the State or the second respondent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court noted that the appellant had explicitly declined to challenge the merits of the charge sheet or the cognizance order. Instead, the relief sought was procedural and grounded in the binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The Court observed that Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI mandates a uniform approach to bail across all criminal cases, irrespective of the statute under which the accused is charged. The judgment clarified that courts must not apply a presumption of guilt merely because the offence falls under a special law, and must evaluate bail applications on the parameters of necessity, proportionality, and the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"The Court in Satender Kumar Antil has made it clear that the grant of bail is not a matter of discretion but a matter of right, subject to the conditions laid down in the CrPC and the Constitution."
The Court further held that where no bail application has been decided by the trial court, and the accused seeks liberty to file one, the High Court may grant such liberty to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Court also emphasized that the pendency of proceedings under the SC/ST Act does not justify automatic denial of bail or immediate arrest.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court granted liberty to file a bail application before the trial court within four weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. If filed within the stipulated period, the trial court shall decide the bail application in accordance with law. For a period of four weeks or until the filing of the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied Under Special Statutes
- Practitioners must now argue that Satender Kumar Antil applies uniformly, even in cases under the SC/ST Act, POCSO, or other special laws.
- Courts cannot presume flight risk or tampering solely on the basis of the nature of the offence.
Coercive Action Must Be Suspended Pending Bail Hearing
- The Court’s stay on coercive action for four weeks sets a precedent for interim protection.
- Lawyers should immediately seek similar stays in pending cases where bail applications remain undecided.
Trial Courts Must Act Promptly on Bail Applications
- The four-week window creates a de facto deadline for trial courts to decide bail.
- Delay in deciding bail applications may now be challenged as a violation of Satender Kumar Antil.
