-
by Admin
08 April 2026 11:26 AM
“It is to be considered as to whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are applicable against him or not?” — In a significant order Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the denial of bail to one Rahul Bundela @ Rahul, an accused booked under multiple IPC provisions and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Observing that the accused himself belongs to a Scheduled Caste and no specific insult based on caste was attributed to him, the Court allowed the statutory appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
Justice Manisha Batra noted,
“It is to be considered as to whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are applicable against him or not?”
and held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in further custody.
“Allegation of Caste Insult Is Not Specifically Attributed to the Appellant” — High Court Questions Applicability of SC/ST Act
The FIR was registered on 10.04.2024 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 452, and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act, based on the complaint of Gurudayal, a Scheduled Caste member, who alleged that he was physically assaulted by the appellant and his associates at his saw mill. The attack was said to have involved caste-based verbal abuse and threats to kill.
However, in her detailed bail order, the Court drew attention to the fact that the accused Rahul Bundela is also a member of a deprived Scheduled Caste. The Court observed,
“He has placed on record Annexure P-2 copy of certificate… showing that he belongs to Khatik caste that has been declared as Deprived Scheduled Caste by the Government of Haryana.”
The Court noted that the FIR “reveals that the allegation that the victim was called by the name of his caste have not been specifically attributed to him.”
“No Specific Injury or Weapon Alleged Against the Appellant” — Court Finds Bail Justified on Factual Grounds
Justice Batra pointed out that while the FIR alleged that multiple assailants attacked the complainant, no specific injury was attributed to the appellant. The Court also noted the absence of any reference to him carrying a particular weapon at the time of the incident.
It was further noted that the appellant had been arrested after a considerable delay of 425 days from the registration of the FIR, and he had remained in custody since 05.06.2025.
Considering these factual aspects, the Court stated,
“Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the appellant, the nature of attributions made to him and the above discussed facts as well as in the peculiar circumstances of the case… no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody any more.”
“No Infirmity in Lower Court’s Finding on Seriousness of Allegations, But Bail Still Warranted” — High Court Balances Liberty with Law
The State’s argument against bail, pointing to the gravity of charges under the SC/ST Act and the presence of CCTV footage capturing the entire incident, was noted. However, the Court distinguished between collective allegations and specific individual roles.
While refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the appellant’s prolonged custody, the absence of specific overt acts, and his Scheduled Caste status weighed in favour of granting bail.
“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail…” the Court held.
Scheduled Caste Status of Accused Casts Doubt on SC/ST Charges — High Court Affirms Liberty in Absence of Specific Role
This case raises pertinent legal questions on the applicability of the SC/ST Act where both the complainant and accused belong to Scheduled Castes, especially in the absence of specific allegations regarding caste-based insults. The Court's order reflects a balanced approach — protecting individual liberty while respecting the statutory framework of the SC/ST Act.
Date of Decision: 20 August 2025
