Bail Cannot Be Denied Where Settlement Removes the Sting of Allegations: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Scheduled Caste Accused in Assault Case Despite SC/ST Act Charges

“Innocent Until Proven Guilty Extends to Pre-Trial Bail When Parties Settle and Liberty Is at Stake” — In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Amit Kumar @ Meeta , overturning the order of the Special Court, Kaithal, which had denied bail in a case involving serious allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj underscored the primacy of personal liberty and noted that the allegations, though serious, could not justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration where the parties had amicably resolved their differences.

Highlighting the delicate balance between the rights of the accused and the need for fair trial, the Court made a critical observation:
“It is well established that the veracity of allegations and counter allegations can only be determined after the conclusion of the trial, and the Court must tread cautiously to not prejudice the rights of any party while deciding pre-trial custody.”

The judgment brings to the forefront important considerations in bail jurisprudence, especially in cases involving community-sensitive allegations under the SC/ST Act, when accompanied by factors of amicable resolution and absence of trial progress.

Justice Bhardwaj commenced the ruling by acknowledging the factual backdrop: the FIR accused the appellant and others of assaulting the complainant and his friend during a group altercation, leading to injuries. However, as the Court noted, “except making allegations against the appellant, no specific role was attributed in the initial complaint,” and subsequent investigations merely assigned a generic involvement without detailed individual culpability.

Crucially, the Court recorded the statement from the complainant himself, who admitted to settling the matter. “The dispute arose due to misunderstanding but now the same has been resolved by both the sides,” the Court noted, reflecting the complainant's acknowledgment of compromise.

The appellant’s legal counsel drew attention to the fact that the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Caste community himself, raising questions about the very applicability of the SC/ST Act provisions. While refraining from adjudicating this contention conclusively at the bail stage, the Court observed, “The appellant himself belongs to Scheduled Caste and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted to him, which is a matter to be assessed during the trial.”

What tilted the scales decisively in favour of the appellant was his continued incarceration without trial advancement. The Court noted, “The appellant has already undergone more than five months of custody, and the investigation has been completed. The charges are yet to be framed, and the trial will certainly take a considerable period to conclude.”

The State’s argument that CCTV footage captured the appellant at the scene was not seen as dispositive. Justice Bhardwaj remarked, “Presence at the scene without specific attribution of criminal conduct cannot, by itself, justify indefinite incarceration in the pre-trial stage, especially after a settlement.”

In underscoring the constitutional value of liberty, the Court invoked settled principles of law:
“Prolonged incarceration without trial militates against the constitutional guarantee of liberty, and the Courts are obligated to ensure that an accused does not become a casualty of systemic delay.”

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate. Importantly, the Court further clarified, “In case the appellant does not furnish bail within a period of one week, his custody will not be counted in the present case after one week.”

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s balanced approach in granting bail in cases involving serious charges, particularly when pre-trial incarceration becomes excessive and the complainant and accused settle their disputes. Justice Bhardwaj succinctly captured the spirit of the ruling, concluding,
“Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

The ruling thus marks an important reaffirmation of the principles that bail remains the rule, jail the exception, and liberty cannot be needlessly curtailed when compromise and judicial caution operate together.

Date of Decision: 16th July 2025