The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing that the offence must occur at a public place to attract the stringent provisions of the Act. The Court set aside the trial court's order denying bail, noting that the alleged incident occurred in an agricultural field, not a public place, and that no evidence indicated the accused caused injury to the complainant. The decision underscores the importance of precise factual scrutiny in Atrocities Act cases before denying bail.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The appellant, Kamal Singh, was arrested on 04.06.2026 in connection with FIR No. 85/2026 registered at Police Station Sirohi, District Sirohi, under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR alleged offences under:
- Section 115(2), 140(3), 127(2) of the BNS
- Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST Act
- Section 126(2) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
The impugned order denying bail was passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sirohi, on 12.06.2026.
Key Facts
- The appellant has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2026.
- The alleged incident is stated to have occurred in an agricultural field, not at a public place.
- The complainant alleged assault, but the case diary does not indicate any injury caused by the appellant.
- The appellant was implicated based on conjectures and surmises, according to the defence.
Procedural History
- 04.06.2026: Appellant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- 12.06.2026: Special Judge denies bail, passing the impugned order.
- 16.07.2026: Present appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Rajasthan High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- The appellant’s counsel argued that no case is made out against the appellant and that his incarceration is unwarranted.
- It was submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated and that the offence does not attract the SC/ST Act as it did not occur at a public place.
- The counsel emphasized that the trial will take a long time to conclude, warranting bail.
For the Respondent
- The Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal but could not refute the absence of evidence showing the appellant caused injury to the complainant.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 applies when the alleged offence does not occur at a public place, and whether the appellant’s continued judicial custody is justified in the absence of evidence linking him to the complainant’s injuries.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence or conjectural evidence. It was argued that:
- The appellant has been in custody since 04.06.2026, which is sufficient time to assess the case’s merits.
- The FIR does not allege the offence occurred at a public place, a critical requirement under the SC/ST Act.
- There is no material in the case diary to indicate the appellant caused injury to the complainant.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal but acknowledged that:
- There is no evidence to suggest the appellant inflicted injuries on the complainant.
- The opposition was based on the alleged seriousness of the offences, not on evidence against the appellant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and the legal framework governing bail under the SC/ST Act. It noted that:
- The SC/ST Act imposes stringent provisions to curb atrocities against marginalized communities, but these provisions are triggered only when the offence occurs at a public place.
- The FIR and case diary do not support the allegation that the incident occurred at a public place, nor do they indicate the appellant caused injury to the complainant.
- The absence of evidence against the appellant and the prolonged judicial custody (over a month) do not justify continued incarceration.
"Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties; the facts and circumstances of the case; the case diary and the fact that alleged incident has not occurred at public place so as to attract offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and there is no material available in the case diary to indicate any injury being caused by the appellant this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind bars for an indefinite period."
The Court emphasized that its findings are limited to the bail adjudication and should not prejudice the trial court’s assessment of the case on merits.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded in his appeal. The Court:
- Set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 denying bail.
- Allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellant on bail.
- Ordered the appellant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Directed the appellant to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
- Clarified that its findings are for limited purposes of bail adjudication and should not prejudice the trial court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Public Place Requirement Under SC/ST Act
The judgment clarifies that offences under the SC/ST Act require the alleged act to occur at a public place. Practitioners must carefully examine the FIR and case diary to determine whether this threshold is met before opposing bail on Atrocities Act grounds.
- Agricultural fields, private premises, or non-public spaces do not attract the stringent provisions of the Act.
- Bail cannot be denied solely on the label of the offence if the factual basis is absent.
Judicial Custody Must Be Proportionate
- The Court reiterated that prolonged judicial custody without evidence linking the accused to the offence is unjustified.
- Conjectures and surmises are insufficient to deny bail, especially when the case diary lacks corroborative material.
Trial Court’s Discretion Remains Paramount
- The Court’s findings are limited to bail adjudication and do not prejudice the trial court’s assessment.
- Trial courts must independently evaluate evidence without being swayed by appellate observations.
