SC/ST (POA) Act | Statutory Appeal Must Be Preferred Against Bail Rejection Order, Criminal Petition Not Maintainable: Telangana High Court

"On reading of Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act, Appeal has to be filed against the rejection of the bail order." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a criminal petition for regular bail is not maintainable against an order of a Special Court refusing bail in cases involving the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench of Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao emphasized that the statutory remedy under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act must be strictly followed, observing that, "Regular bail petition filed by A5 and A8 is not maintainable in view of Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act."

The petitioners were accused in Crime No.117 of 2026 of P.S. Haliya, facing charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (POA) Act. After their bail applications were rejected by the Special Court, the accused sought relief from the High Court via criminal petitions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The prosecution opposed the pleas, arguing that a statutory appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act was the exclusive remedy.

The primary question before the court was whether a regular criminal petition for bail is maintainable against an order of a Special Court denying bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the filing of a charge sheet alters the necessity of approaching the court via statutory appeal rather than a general bail petition.

Exclusivity of the Statutory Remedy

The Court clarified that the scheme of the SC/ST (POA) Act specifically mandates an appeal process for challenging bail orders. Contrary to the petitioners' reliance on general procedural provisions, the bench noted that Section 14A clearly overrides general procedure regarding how such challenges must be mounted.

Court Distinguishes Supreme Court Precedent

Addressing the reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, the Court held that the precedent was inapplicable to the present facts. The bench observed that the Supreme Court’s observations in that case pertained to the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act in the context of anticipatory bail, and did not grant license to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism required for regular bail orders.

"The decision cited by the learned counsel for A5 and A8 in Shajan Skaria is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has dealt with Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act but not in a regular bail petition."

Grant of Bail to Other Co-Accused

While dismissing the petitions of A5 and A8 for lack of maintainability, the Court granted bail to other co-accused (A1 to A4 and A7). The court noted that since the investigation had concluded and the charge sheet had been filed in Spl. S.C. No.133 of 2026, the primary concerns regarding witness tampering were significantly mitigated. The bench imposed stringent conditions, including regular attendance at the police station and a prohibition on influencing witnesses.

"Since charge sheet is already filed A1 to A4 and A7 are entitled for grant of bail on conditions."

The final order directs that the petitioners A1 to A4 and A7 be released upon executing personal bonds and sureties, with the mandate that any violation of the imposed conditions shall empower the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. The petitions filed by A5 and A8 were dismissed as not maintainable, effectively directing them to follow the proper appellate channel under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026