Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Criminal History—Conspiracy Allegations Alone Insufficient Without Direct Role in SC/ST Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Appellant in Custody Since December—Injuries Not Dangerous to Life, No Role Attributed Under SC/ST Act - Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, setting aside the trial court's order denying regular bail to the appellant. Justice Manisha Batra observed that “the allegations under the SC/ST Act are not against the appellant, and continued incarceration serves no useful purpose where trial is ongoing, and there is no prima facie likelihood of tampering with evidence.” 
 

The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 859/2024 registered at PS Sadar, Hisar, under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Arms Act, and the SC/ST Act. The complainant alleged that on October 14, 2024, a group of armed assailants intercepted his vehicle, tried to abduct him, physically assaulted him and his companions, and hurled caste-based slurs at him. 
 
The core accusation against the appellant was that he was the mastermind behind the assault and had conspired with co-accused Rakesh @ Shaka and others to "teach the complainant a lesson" over a mortgage dispute involving Rs. 2.5 lakhs. While co-accused were arrested earlier, the appellant was arrested on December 13, 2024, and has remained in custody since then. 
 
His bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on January 16, 2025, prompting the present appeal. 
 
Counsel for the appellant argued that: “The complainant has a history of filing false cases and concocted a story after a delay of three days. The FIR was manipulated to frame the appellant. No specific injury is attributed to the appellant. No recovery has been made. The appellant wasn’t present at the scene and is only implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement.” 
 
Further, it was submitted that: “Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are not attracted as the caste-based abuses were not made by the appellant. Co-accused themselves belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, which makes the invocation of SC/ST Act even more questionable.” 
 
In response, the State and complainant argued that: “The appellant is a habitual gangster and mastermind of the conspiracy. Call records reveal contact with co-accused just before the incident. He had personal enmity with the complainant over a financial dispute and instigated the attack.” 
 
However, the Court, after evaluating the records and rival submissions, observed: “The appellant is not alleged to have used caste-based slurs. The injuries sustained by the complainant were not opined to be dangerous to life. Most of the injuries were on limbs and were grievous but not fatal.” 
 
Justice Batra noted: “The appellant has remained in custody since 13.12.2024 and the trial has commenced. The fact that he has prior criminal cases cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail, particularly when he has already been acquitted in some and convicted in only one.” 
 
The Court held that there was no material to suggest that the appellant would abscond or influence witnesses, stating: “There is no basis for the contention that the appellant may intimidate the witnesses or abscond if extended benefit of bail.” 

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s order, and granted regular bail to Devender Kumar, with conditions that: “He shall not influence or intimidate the complainant or any witness. Any violation of this condition shall empower the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail.” 
 
The Court clarified that: “The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.” 
 
Date of Decision: 27 March 2025