Section 14A SC & ST (PoA) Act | 60-Day Default Bail Entitlement Affirmed : AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after noting that the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within the statutory period of 60 days. The Court emphasized that the accused is entitled to default bail under Section 14A of the Act, absent any tangible material to suggest tampering with evidence or witness intimidation. The judgment underscores the strict timelines prescribed under the Act and the consequences of non-compliance by investigating agencies.

Background & Facts

The Genesis

The appellant, Yeruva Venkateswara Reddy, was arrested on 17.05.2026 in connection with FIR No. 87 of 2026 registered on 16.05.2026 at Nandyal Taluka Police Station, Nandyal District. The FIR alleged offences under:

• Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
• Section 351(2) of the BNS
• Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST (PoA) Act).

Key Facts

• The FIR was registered on 16.05.2026 for offences under the SC & ST (PoA) Act and the BNS.
• The appellant was arrested on 17.05.2026 and has been in judicial custody for 63 days as of the date of the judgment (21.07.2026).
• The investigating agency has not filed a charge sheet within the 60-day period mandated under the SC & ST (PoA) Act.
• The prosecution admitted that no charge sheet had been filed and that the investigation was pending due to an awaited RFSL report.
• The trial court, in its order dated 30.06.2026, denied bail to the appellant in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2026.

Procedural History

• 16.05.2026: FIR registered at Nandyal Taluka Police Station.
• 17.05.2026: Appellant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
• 30.06.2026: Trial court dismissed bail application in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2026.
• 14.07.2026: Notice issued to the defacto-complainant under Section 15(A)(3) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act; served but no appearance or objections filed.
• 21.07.2026: Present Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2026 heard and disposed of by the High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

The appellant contended that:

• The FIR was registered on 16.05.2026 and he was arrested on 17.05.2026, making his custody 63 days as of the date of the appeal.
• The SC & ST (PoA) Act mandates completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet within 60 days from the date of FIR.
• Since no charge sheet had been filed, the appellant was entitled to default bail under Section 14A(2) of the Act.
• There was no material on record to suggest that the appellant would tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or interfere with the investigation.
• The trial court erred in not considering these facts and circumstances.

For the State

The State, through the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not dispute:

• The dates of FIR registration and arrest.
• The non-filing of the charge sheet within 60 days.
• The statutory requirement under the SC & ST (PoA) Act for filing the charge sheet within 60 days.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought:

• Setting aside of the trial court's order dated 30.06.2026 denying bail.
• Enlargement of the appellant on bail pending trial.
• Imposition of reasonable conditions to ensure the appellant's presence during trial and compliance with investigation.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the appellant was entitled to default bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, given that the charge sheet had not been filed within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of FIR.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the statutory mandate under the SC & ST (PoA) Act, which requires the investigating agency to file a charge sheet within 60 days from the date of registration of FIR. The counsel argued that the failure to file the charge sheet within the stipulated period entitled the appellant to default bail, irrespective of the merits of the case. The counsel further submitted that there was no material to suggest that the appellant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and hence, the trial court's order denying bail was unsustainable.

For the Respondent

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factual matrix presented by the appellant, including the non-filing of the charge sheet within 60 days. The State conceded that the statutory timeline for filing the charge sheet had lapsed but did not oppose the grant of bail on the ground of default.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the provisions of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, particularly Section 14A(2), which provides for the grant of default bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory period. The Court noted that:

• The FIR was registered on 16.05.2026 and the appellant was arrested on 17.05.2026.
• As of the date of the judgment, the appellant had been in custody for 63 days.
• The investigating agency had not filed a charge sheet within the 60-day period mandated under the Act.
• The prosecution did not dispute these facts.

The Court observed that the statutory mandate under the SC & ST (PoA) Act is clear and unambiguous. The failure to file a charge sheet within 60 days entitles the accused to default bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the court. The Court further noted that there was no material on record to suggest that the appellant would interfere with the investigation or intimidate witnesses.

"Considering the above facts and circumstances, and as the record does not disclose any tangible material to say that the appellant would interfere with the investigation, or threaten the witnesses in any manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to enlarge the appellant/accused on bail, imposing some conditions."

The Court held that the trial court's order denying bail was unsustainable on both factual and legal grounds.

The Verdict

The Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2026 was allowed. The Court set aside the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SC & ST (PoA) Act, Kurnool. The appellant was enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

• Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for a like sum each.
• The appellant shall not intimidate, annoy, or contact the defacto-complainant or his family members.
• The appellant shall join the investigation as and when requested by the investigating agency.
• The appellant shall not leave the country without the permission of the Special Court.
• In case of violation of any condition, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail order before the concerned Special Court.

The Court directed that interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Strict Compliance with Statutory Timelines Is Non-Negotiable

• Investigating agencies must strictly adhere to the 60-day timeline for filing charge sheets under the SC & ST (PoA) Act.
• Failure to comply with the timeline entitles the accused to default bail, irrespective of the merits of the case.
• Courts must vigilantly enforce these timelines to prevent arbitrary detention.

Default Bail Is an Automatic Right, Not a Discretionary Relief

• The right to default bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act is automatic upon the expiry of the 60-day period.
• The court's role is limited to imposing reasonable conditions to ensure the accused's presence during trial and compliance with investigation.
• The prosecution cannot oppose default bail on the ground of ongoing investigation or pending reports.

Conditions for Bail Must Be Proportionate and Enforceable

• Bail conditions must be tailored to the facts of the case and should not be excessive.
• Conditions such as surrendering of passport, refraining from contact with witnesses, and regular appearances before the investigating agency are enforceable and proportionate.
• Courts must ensure that bail conditions do not become punitive or impinge on the accused's fundamental rights.

The Burden of Proof Lies on the Prosecution to Justify Continued Custody

• Once the statutory timeline for filing the charge sheet expires, the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify continued custody.
• The prosecution must demonstrate tangible material to suggest that the accused would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
• Absent such material, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right.