The Allahabad High Court has clarified that allegations of caste-based insults occurring within the private sphere - such as inside a home - do not automatically attract the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, absent corroborative evidence or a public dimension. This ruling reinforces the need for careful scrutiny of factual allegations before invoking the Act’s punitive framework.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Narendra Yadav, was accused of committing acts constituting an atrocity under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), arising from a long-term extramarital relationship with the complainant. The complainant, a married woman with two minor children, alleged that the appellant established a physical relationship with her in 2013 on the promise that he would not marry anyone else. The relationship continued for over a decade. Upon learning of the appellant’s subsequent marriage in 2025, she confronted him on 10.09.2025, whereafter he allegedly assaulted her and used caste-based epithets.
Key Facts
The complainant is a married woman residing in a village in District Raebareli
The appellant and complainant had a consensual physical relationship since 2013
The complainant’s husband resides in Rajasthan and is engaged in daily wage labour
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 10.09.2025 at Police Station Salon, Raebareli
The FIR invoked Sections 69, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
The complainant, aged 40, admitted in her statement under Section 180 BNS to the long-standing relationship
The appellant has been in custody since 08.11.2025
The appellant has a prior criminal case, which he has explained and which the court accepted as duly accounted for
Procedural History
10.09.2025: FIR registered at Police Station Salon, District Raebareli
23.02.2026: Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli, rejected bail application (Bail Application No. 3651/2025)
08.11.2025: Appellant taken into custody
27.04.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2026 heard before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
Argued that the complainant was already married and had voluntarily engaged in a long-term relationship
Contended that no false promise to marry could be established under the law
Asserted that the alleged caste-based insults occurred inside the house, not in public view, and thus do not meet the threshold for an atrocity under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
Relied on Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 303 to support the argument that consensual relationships do not attract the Act unless there is clear evidence of public humiliation or caste-based violence
Highlighted that the appellant has been in custody since 08.11.2025 and has no history of repeated offences
For the Respondent
Argued that the admission of a long-term relationship coupled with caste-based language during confrontation establishes the ingredients of the offences
Maintained that the SC/ST Act applies regardless of whether the insult occurred in private, as the victim’s identity as a member of a Scheduled Caste was known to the accused
Did not dispute the appellant’s explanation of prior criminal history
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the bail rejection order dated 23.02.2026 and grant of bail with reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
Whether the mere assertion of caste-based insults uttered inside a private residence, during a dispute over a long-standing consensual relationship, is sufficient to invoke Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, without corroboration or evidence of public humiliation or intent to demean in a communal context.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the SC/ST Act is designed to address acts of public humiliation, social boycott, or violence aimed at reinforcing caste hierarchy in public or community spaces. The alleged use of caste-based epithets occurred in the privacy of the complainant’s home during a personal dispute, not in a manner intended to degrade the community. Citing Rajnish Singh @ Soni, he argued that consensual relationships, even if morally questionable, cannot be transformed into atrocities merely because one party belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The absence of any independent witness or corroborative evidence further weakened the case for invoking the Act’s stringent provisions.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate argued that the Act does not require the insult to be public; the key is whether the act was committed because of the victim’s caste identity. The fact that the appellant used caste-based language during a confrontation, knowing the complainant’s identity, was sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(v). The prosecution maintained that the complainant’s admission of a long-term relationship does not negate the criminality of the insult, particularly when it occurred in the context of betrayal and violence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the pleadings and the complainant’s own statement recorded under Section 180 BNS, which admitted to a consensual relationship spanning over a decade. The Court noted that the complainant’s motivation for filing the FIR was triggered by the appellant’s subsequent marriage, not by any prior pattern of caste-based abuse.
"In such circumstances, aspect of applicability of Section 452 IPC read with Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would require corroboration by evidence, particularly since the aspect of insulting the complainant is said to have taken place inside the house."
The Court emphasized that the SC/ST Act must be applied with caution to avoid misuse, particularly where the allegations arise from private disputes. The Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh @ Soni had held that the Act cannot be stretched to cover every interpersonal conflict involving a member of a Scheduled Caste. The Court found that the Special Judge had failed to appreciate this distinction and had mechanically applied the Act without evaluating the context or the nature of the alleged insult.
The Court further observed that the complainant’s own testimony undermined the claim of a sudden, public act of humiliation. The absence of any independent evidence or prior incidents of caste-based abuse by the appellant further weakened the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The order dated 23.02.2026 rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount. The following conditions were imposed: (i) no tampering with evidence; (ii) no intimidation of witnesses; (iii) no inducement or threat to dissuade disclosure of facts; (iv) no adjournment requests when witnesses are present; (v) mandatory appearance before the trial court on all dates; and (vi) if the appellant absconds after a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS, proceedings under Section 209 BNS shall be initiated. All pending applications stood disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Private Insults Require Corroboration Under SC/ST Act
Practitioners must now demonstrate that caste-based language or acts occurred in a context that publicly demeaned the victim’s community, not merely in private disputes
Mere admission of a relationship, even if extramarital, does not convert a personal grievance into an atrocity
Courts must scrutinize whether the alleged insult was intended to reinforce caste hierarchy or was incidental to a personal conflict
Bail Should Not Be Denied Solely on the Basis of SC/ST Act Allegations
The Act does not create an automatic bar to bail; the ordinary principles of bail under CrPC still apply
Courts must evaluate the prima facie strength of the charge, especially where the allegations are confined to private spaces
The existence of a prior criminal case does not justify denial of bail if it has been satisfactorily explained
Evidence Must Precede Invocation of Stringent Provisions
The burden is on the prosecution to establish a nexus between the act and caste identity at the preliminary stage
Statements under Section 180 BNS admitting consensual relationships must be weighed carefully before invoking the SC/ST Act
Absence of independent witnesses or corroborative evidence weakens the case for invoking the Act’s enhanced punishment provisions
