The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has clarified that vague, non-specific allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot justify the denial of pre-arrest bail, particularly when the charges lack individualized attribution and include bailable offences under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Suresh Laxman Shinde and Balu Mukinda Shinde, along with six others, filed a pre-arrest bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in connection with Crime No. 122 of 2026, registered at Pimpalner Police Station, Beed. The case involves allegations of atrocities under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alongside offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The bail application was rejected on 19th May 2026, prompting this criminal appeal.
Key Facts
- The complaint was lodged by an informant alleging physical assault and caste-based abuse by the appellants and six others
- The informant did not specify which accused person inflicted kicks or fist blows, or who uttered caste slurs
- The allegations are described as "vague and omnibus", with no individualized attribution of acts
- The offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, cited in the FIR, are all bailable
- No specific evidence or witness statements were cited in the bail order to substantiate the allegations against the appellants individually
Procedural History
- 15.04.2026: Crime No. 122 of 2026 registered at Pimpalner Police Station, Beed
- 05.05.2026: Pre-arrest bail application filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Beed (Criminal Bail Application No. 391 of 2025)
- 19.05.2026: Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application
- 20.05.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
- 17.06.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Abhay J. Mantri
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
The appellants contended that the allegations were non-specific, lacked individual attribution, and failed to establish a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. They argued that the inclusion of bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, further weakened the case for denial of bail. They emphasized the absence of any concrete evidence linking them to the alleged acts.
For the Respondents
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not contest the vagueness of the allegations but relied on the seriousness of the SC/ST Act offences and the potential for witness tampering. No specific evidence or affidavit was filed to substantiate the individual culpability of the appellants.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought ad-interim pre-arrest bail with conditions, including appearance before the police station, non-tampering with evidence, and non-departure from India, pending the next hearing.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether pre-arrest bail can be denied under the SC/ST Act solely on the basis of vague, omnibus allegations that fail to attribute specific acts to individual accused persons, particularly when the case also includes bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on the principle that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail only if a prima facie case of atrocity is made out with specificity. They cited State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Babu and Kishor v. State of Maharashtra to argue that blanket allegations without individual attribution cannot trigger the bar under Section 18. They emphasized that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita offences cited are bailable and do not warrant denial of bail.
For the Respondent
The State did not dispute the vagueness of the allegations but argued that the nature of the SC/ST Act offences necessitated strict scrutiny. However, no counter-affidavit or specific evidence was presented to rebut the claim of non-attribution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the FIR and found that the allegations were conclusory and failed to identify which appellant committed which act. The Court noted:
"The Informant has not stated which Appellant or accused person gave him kicks and fist blows or abused him with a caste slur."
It held that without such specificity, the threshold for invoking the non-bailable bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not met. The Court further observed that the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are bailable and cannot be used to justify the denial of bail. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is a rule, not an exception, and the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a credible, individualized case before denying liberty.
The Court rejected the notion that the mere registration of an FIR under the SC/ST Act automatically negates the right to bail, especially where the allegations are non-specific and the other charges are bailable.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Court granted ad-interim bail to Suresh Laxman Shinde and Balu Mukinda Shinde, subject to the following conditions: (1) They shall appear at Pimpalner Police Station on 24th June 2026 between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., and thereafter as summoned; (2) They shall not tamper with evidence until the next date; (3) They shall not leave India without prior court permission. They are to furnish personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 50,000 each. Notice was issued to Respondent No. 3, returnable on 13th July 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Vague Allegations Cannot Trigger SC/ST Act’s Bail Bar
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials under the SC/ST Act where the FIR lacks individualized attribution of acts
- Courts must conduct a preliminary scrutiny of allegations before invoking Section 18’s bar
- Blanket allegations against multiple accused without distinguishing roles are legally insufficient
Bailable Offences Under BNS Undermine Bail Denial
- When SC/ST Act charges are paired with bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the overall nature of the case must be assessed holistically
- Denial of bail cannot rest solely on non-bailable charges if other charges are bailable and the evidence is weak
- Courts must apply the principle of proportionality in bail decisions
Pre-Arrest Bail Is the Norm, Not the Exception
- The presumption of innocence applies even in sensitive cases under the SC/ST Act
- The burden to establish a prima facie case lies with the prosecution at the bail stage
- Courts must avoid automatic denial of bail based on the nature of the statute alone
