Intent and Context Crucial in Determining Offenses Under SC/ST Act: PH High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Ankit, who was accused under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court, led by Justice Manisha Batra, emphasized that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act was not made out, highlighting the importance of intent and public context in such allegations.

Ankit faced charges following an FIR registered on July 17, 2023, based on a complaint by Bhupender @ Bablu. The complainant alleged that on the night of July 15, 2023, he was taken outside by the accused, including Ankit, and abused with casteist slurs before being assaulted. The complaint led to charges under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The court noted that co-accused in the case had already been granted pre-arrest bail. It found that the allegations of casteist abuse occurring in a public view at around 1:00 AM lacked credibility due to the improbability of public presence at that hour.

The court stressed the importance of intent in offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which require intentional insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Justice Batra observed, "The soul of the provision is intention. The insult should be intentional, and the intimidation should be with intent to humiliate."

The judgment emphasized that for an offense under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the abuse must occur within public view. The court found that the incident's occurrence outside a village school gate at 1:00 AM did not meet this criterion, making it unlikely to be within public view.

The court scrutinized the delay in witness Hetram's statement, made a month after the incident, suggesting it might be an afterthought. This undermined the credibility of the witness's account that he had seen the abuse taking place.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018), which allows anticipatory bail if a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out. It held that the allegations against Ankit lacked the necessary prima facie evidence to attract the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

Justice Batra remarked, "No prima facie case for the commission of offense punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act can be stated to have been made out, thereby attracting the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act."

The court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to Ankit underscores the judiciary's meticulous approach in interpreting the SC/ST Act's provisions. By highlighting the need for intent and the public view context, the judgment ensures that only substantiated and credible allegations are prosecuted under these stringent laws. This ruling sets a precedent for careful examination of the facts and intent behind allegations, reinforcing the importance of protecting individuals' rights against unsubstantiated charges.

Date of Decision: 01.07.2024

Ankit vs. State of Haryana