#Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act

Delhi High Court held that knowledge of victim's caste suffices to frame charges under Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. This lowers the threshold for invoking atrocity provisions at charge framing, impacting prosecutors and accused.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that completion of investigation under the SC/ST Act, combined with the absence of flight risk and the fact that co-accused are already on bail, justifies release even in non-bailable offences. This clarifies that procedural finality and equitable treatment of co-accused can override the presumption of detention under the Act, offering critical relief to accused in prolonged pre-trial custody.

The Bombay High Court holds that mere physical contact like hand-holding, absent any caste-based abuse or slur, cannot trigger the non-bailable provisions of the SC/ST Act. This clarifies that the Act’s stringent bail restrictions apply only to acts of humiliation or degradation rooted in caste identity, not to personal or romantic conduct devoid of discriminatory intent - protecting accused persons from automatic pre-trial detention in ambiguous cases.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that when a suicide note explicitly names the accused as the cause of distress, it creates sufficient prima facie evidence to sustain charges under Section 306 IPC, even if witnesses later recant. This sets a critical precedent for courts to resist quashing at threshold stages where the suicide note itself forms the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, particularly in atrocity cases involving marginalized communities.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to two accused under the SC & ST Act and BNS, holding that completion of investigation, absence of prior criminal history, and the minor nature of injuries outweigh the presumption of gravity attached to such charges. This reinforces that procedural closure and personal circumstances can override blanket assumptions in atrocities cases, offering critical relief to first-time accused.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that fear of absconding cannot justify denying bail under the SC/ST Act in the absence of any prior criminal history, reinforcing that pre-trial liberty must be the norm even in serious cases. This sets a critical precedent for accused persons with clean records facing prolonged trials under special statutes, curbing judicial overreach based on speculative grounds.

Allahabad HC ruled that bail under the SC/ST Act cannot be denied solely on custodial confession if the accused is not named in the FIR and lacks direct evidence linking them to the crime. The court emphasized simple injuries and absence of firearm involvement, reinforcing that parity in bail grants must consider evidentiary gaps, not just statutory severity.

The Bombay High Court held that invoking the SC/ST Act requires more than the victim’s caste identity - prosecutors must demonstrate a specific caste-based motive behind the offense. This ruling prevents mechanical application of the Act and reinforces that bail decisions must be grounded in evidentiary proof of discriminatory intent, not presumption.

Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that a rape conviction under Section 376 IPC can rest solely on the victim's testimony if it inspires confidence, even without DNA evidence. The ruling underscores the primacy of witness credibility in sexual offence cases while setting aside convictions under the SC/ST Act due to unproven caste certificates.

Bombay High Court quashes Atrocities Act charges where caste awareness is unproven and investigation is tainted by selective evidence collection.