#SCST Act

The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR against police officers, holding that magistrates must apply judicial mind under BNSS 175(3)-(4) and consider the superior officer's report and the public servant's explanations before directing registration of an FIR arising from official duties. The ruling safeguards public servants from mala fide prosecutions while ensuring accountability.

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 Supreme Court ruled that a caste-based insult must be uttered in a place visible to the public to attract liability under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Consequently, charges were dismissed where the alleged abuse occurred in a private office. This clarifies the public-view test for all future SC/ST Act prosecutions.

The Karnataka High Court refused to discharge the accused, confirming that a caste-based insult made in public fulfills the prima facie requirement for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC 504. This clarifies that such public insults alone can sustain charge-framing, impacting future prosecutions involving caste slurs.

Patna High Court affirmed life imprisonment for murder based on a single reliable eyewitness, while quashing the SC/ST Act conviction for lacking proof of a caste motive and reducing the Arms Act sentence, underscoring stricter evidentiary standards for both murder and atrocity charges.

Allahabad HC quashed a summoning order under the SC/ST Act, ruling that a civil dispute cannot ground prosecution unless allegations disclose a prima facie caste-based insult. The court emphasized that summoning orders must reflect independent judicial satisfaction, not mechanical application.

Allahabad HC set aside bail rejection under SC/ST Act after finding the appellant falsely implicated as a marginal witness in a fabricated sale deed dispute. The court emphasized that civil disputes alone cannot justify prima facie caste-based insults under the Act.

Rajasthan High Court grants bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, ruling that Section 3(1)(r)(s) requires the offence to occur at a public place. The judgment clarifies bail jurisprudence under the Act, emphasizing jurisdictional prerequisites for atrocities provisions.

Madhya Pradesh High Court allows anticipatory bail for recovery agents, holding that addition of SC/ST Act offences does not automatically negate bail when underlying dispute is civil in nature.

Bombay High Court grants pre-arrest bail under the SC/ST Act, holding that mere allegations without overt acts and CCTV footage showing assistance to the victim negate a prima facie case. This ruling reinforces evidentiary scrutiny in atrocity cases, impacting bail jurisprudence under the Act.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in an SC/ST Act case, ruling that a sudden quarrel without premeditated common intention reduces culpability under Section 3(5) BNS. The court distinguished between spontaneous altercations and planned offenses, impacting bail considerations in atrocity cases.

Bombay High Court rules that offences under the SC/ST Act not committed in public view and without weapon use may justify bail, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation only when necessary. The order sets a precedent for balancing victim protection with accused rights under atrocity laws.

Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail under the SC/ST Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, emphasizing that delayed FIR filing and the accused's lack of criminal antecedents weaken the prosecution's case. The ruling reinforces that bail considerations under special statutes must account for procedural lapses and individual circumstances.

Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail in an SC/ST Act case, emphasizing the prosecutrix's consent, her missing status, and the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused. The court noted the prosecutrix's graduation-level education and her voluntary absence, weakening the prosecution's case despite atrocity allegations.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that when offenses under the POCSO Act and the SCST Act arise concurrently, the POCSO Act’s bail framework takes precedence over Section 18 of the SCST Act, which otherwise prohibits anticipatory bail. This sets a critical precedent for accused persons facing dual charges, ensuring that child protection laws do not get sidelined by procedural bars meant for caste-based atrocities.