'Questionable Whether SC/ST Act Applies To Accused Who Himself Belongs To Deprived Scheduled Caste': P&H High Court Grants Bail

Granting bail to a man booked under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that since the accused himself belongs to a deprived Scheduled Caste community, it is questionable whether the provisions of the Act would be applicable in the given circumstances.

Justice Manisha Batra noted, "He was arrested after a gap of 425 days after registration of FIR. A perusal of the contents of FIR reveals that the allegation that the victim was called by the name of his caste have not been specifically attributed to him. Even otherwise, he is falling under Deprived Scheduled Caste category and as such, it is to be considered as to whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are applicable against him or not?."

The plea was filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking regular bail.

It was alleged that the petitioner along with the co-accused assaulted the complainant and called him in the name of his caste and while insulting him they proclaimed that they would certainly kill him.

Counsel for the appellant argued that he himself belonged to Scheduled Caste community. As such, the provisions of SC/ST Act were not at all attracted against him but this fact had also not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court while dismissing the plea.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner belonged to Khatik caste that has been declared as Deprived Scheduled Caste by the Government of Haryana.

"The appellant is in custody since 05.06.2025. No specific injury has been attributed to him. Neither any specific weapon was alleged to be carried by him at the time of occurrence," it added.

Considering 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 but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, the Court opined that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody any more.

Consequently, the plea was allowed.

 Mr. Harsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

Title: Rahul Bundela @ Rahul v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read/download the order