Section 3(5) BNS (Ex-Section 34 IPC) | Sudden Quarrel Without Common Intention Justifies Bail Under SC/ST Act : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an appellant charged under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the absence of common intention in a sudden quarrel reduces culpability under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The judgment underscores the need for evidence-based assessment of intent before denying bail in cases involving serious offences.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Ranjana Tiwari, was accused in Case Crime No. 77 of 2026 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352, 3(5) BNS, and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. The incident allegedly occurred on 04.03.2026 at around 05:00 p.m., when the complainant was conversing with one Jeeshu in front of his house. The co-accused Mohit (son of the appellant) allegedly stopped his motorcycle, hurled insults, and assaulted the complainant. The appellant and her daughter Shivani reportedly joined the fray, with Shivani armed with a knife. The complainant’s son, Suraj Gautam, allegedly died due to knife injuries inflicted by Shivani at the appellant’s exhortation.

Key Facts

• Incident Date: 04.03.2026
• FIR Date: Not explicitly mentioned, but registered under Case Crime No. 77/2026
• Alleged Offences: Assault, exhortation, and culpable homicide under Section 3(5) BNS (corresponding to Section 34 IPC) and SC/ST Act
• Witnesses: Jeeshu and Neelam allegedly witnessed the incident
• Post-Mortem Findings: Four injuries on the deceased, including:
  • Injury No. 1: Abraded contusion on the forehead above the root of the nose
  • Injury No. 2: Abraded contusion on the right shoulder
  • Injury No. 3: Incised wound (4 cm x 1 cm) on the lateral aspect of the right side of the chest (cavity deep)
  • Injury No. 4: Abraded contusion on the back of the right elbow
• CCTV Footage: Showed exhortation and assault by the appellant with bare hands, not a knife
• Appellant’s Status: No previous criminal history; incarcerated since 05.03.2026

Procedural History

• 04.03.2026: Incident occurred
• 05.03.2026: Appellant arrested
• Bail Application No. 1786/2026: Filed before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow
• 03.04.2026: Bail application rejected by the trial court
• Present Appeal: Filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act before the Allahabad High Court

Relief Sought

The appellant sought bail, arguing:

• False implication in the case
• Absence of common intention under Section 3(5) BNS
• Sudden quarrel without premeditation
• No role in the knife assault (attributed solely to co-accused Shivani)

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 3(5) BNS (corresponding to Section 34 IPC) could be invoked against the appellant where:

1. The incident was a sudden quarrel without premeditated common intention to cause death.
2. The appellant’s alleged role was limited to exhortation and assault with bare hands, while the fatal injury was inflicted by another co-accused.
3. The evidence, including CCTV footage and post-mortem report, did not conclusively establish the appellant’s direct involvement in the fatal assault.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• False Implication: The appellant was falsely implicated in the case.
• Absence of Common Intention: The incident was a sudden quarrel, and there was no evidence of common intention under Section 3(5) BNS.
• Limited Role: The appellant’s role was limited to exhortation and assault with bare hands, while the fatal injury was inflicted by Shivani.
• Evidence Analysis: The CCTV footage and post-mortem report did not support the appellant’s direct involvement in the fatal assault.
• No Criminal History: The appellant had no previous criminal record and had been incarcerated since 05.03.2026.

For the Respondent/State

• Concerted Effort: The complainant’s statement and CCTV footage indicated a concerted effort by all accused to cause the death of the complainant’s son.
• Section 3(5) BNS Applicability: The charge-sheet rightly invoked Section 3(5) BNS against the appellant.
• Serious Offence: The gravity of the offence warranted denial of bail.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a prima facie assessment of the evidence without delving into the merits of the case. Key observations included:

1. Nature of the Incident: The Court noted that the incident appeared to be a sudden quarrel rather than a premeditated act. This distinction was critical in assessing the applicability of Section 3(5) BNS, which requires common intention.

2. Post-Mortem Report: The Court examined the post-mortem report, which revealed four injuries on the deceased. While injury No. 3 (the incised wound) was fatal, the Court observed that the other injuries were consistent with a sudden altercation rather than a planned assault.

   "The post-mortem report indicates death having been caused due to ante-mortem injuries. It is injury No.3 which is an incised wound present on the lateral aspect of right side of chest which would be relevant for consideration."

3. Evidence Against the Appellant: The Court noted that the CCTV footage and witness statements attributed only exhortation and assault with bare hands to the appellant. The fatal knife injury was allegedly inflicted by Shivani, not the appellant.

   "The documents on record, at this stage, also clearly indicate assault by knife only on the co-accused Shivani while allegations have been levelled against appellant only of exhortation and assault upon the deceased and complainant with bare hands."

4. Absence of Criminal History: The Court emphasized that the appellant had no previous criminal history and had been incarcerated since 05.03.2026, with the trial still at its inception.

5. Bail Considerations: The Court held that the trial court had failed to appreciate the material on record, particularly the distinction between sudden quarrel and common intention. The absence of conclusive evidence linking the appellant to the fatal assault warranted the grant of bail.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 03.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow. The appellant was granted bail subject to the following conditions:

1. Furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
2. Non-Tampering: The appellant shall not tamper with evidence during the trial.
3. Non-Intimidation: The appellant shall not pressurize or intimidate prosecution witnesses.
4. No Inducement: The appellant shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts to dissuade them from disclosing evidence.
5. Adjournment Undertaking: The appellant shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present. Default in this condition may lead to cancellation of bail.
6. Presence During Trial: The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date, either personally or through counsel. Absence without sufficient cause may lead to proceedings under Section 269 BNS (ex-Section 229-A IPC).
7. Compliance with Proclamation: If the appellant misuses bail liberty and fails to appear after a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS (ex-Section 82 CrPC), proceedings under Section 209 BNS (ex-Section 174-A IPC) may be initiated.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Sudden Quarrel vs. Common Intention

• Prima Facie Assessment: Courts must distinguish between sudden quarrels and premeditated acts when invoking Section 3(5) BNS. The absence of common intention can significantly reduce culpability.
• Evidence-Based Bail: Bail applications should be decided based on prima facie evidence rather than the gravity of the offence alone. The Court’s observation that the trial was at its inception underscores the need for a balanced approach.

Role of Forensic Evidence

• Post-Mortem Analysis: The post-mortem report played a crucial role in this case. Courts should carefully analyze forensic evidence to determine the nature of injuries and the role of each accused.
• CCTV Footage: Digital evidence like CCTV footage can be pivotal in corroborating or contradicting witness statements. Practitioners should leverage such evidence to argue for or against bail.

Conditions for Bail Under SC/ST Act

• Stringent Conditions: While the SC/ST Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, courts may grant bail if the evidence does not support common intention or direct involvement in the fatal act.

• Undertakings and Sureties: Courts may impose strict conditions (e.g., non-tampering, regular presence) to ensure compliance. Practitioners should advise clients on adhering to these conditions to avoid bail cancellation.

• Practitioners Takeaway: Always argue the distinction between sudden quarrel and common intention in cases involving Section 3(5) BNS.

• Leverage Forensic Evidence: Use post-mortem reports and CCTV footage to challenge allegations of direct involvement.

• Highlight Lack of Criminal History: Emphasize the accused’s clean record and prolonged incarceration to strengthen bail pleas.