Offence Committed Because Of Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses To Grant Pre-Arrest Bail To Woman Booked For Killing 11-Yr-Old Boy

The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 107, 127(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3 (5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS). The police filed the status report, asserting that Sections 3(2) (v) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act) were also added after the registration of F.I.R.

The Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla asserted, “Hence, the offence was committed because of the caste of the deceased and would not have been committed had the deceased not been a member of the scheduled caste. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude, at this stage, that the petitioner has not prima facie, committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2) (va) of the SC & ST Act”.

Advocate Suman Thakur represented the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General Jitender K. Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the Status Report, the F.I.R. was initially registered under various provisions of BNS. The police conducted an investigation and found that the deceased belonged to the scheduled caste community, whereas the accused petitioner did not belong to the scheduled caste community. The deceased was aged 11 years and 10 months, whereas the accused is aged 50 years. The accused demanded a goat from the deceased for the purification of her house. It was mentioned in the FIR that the deceased had disclosed to his mother that the accused and 2-3 women had beaten and confined the deceased to the cowshed.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the allegations that the accused had confined the deceased in the cowshed and given him beatings because he had touched her house. She asked for a sacrificial goat to purify her house. The Bench found that as per Section 8(c) of the SC & ST Act, there was a presumption that the accused was aware of the caste of the deceased.

The Bench referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) wherein it has been observed that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr. P.C. regarding the pre-arrest bail does not apply to a person accused of committing an offence punishable under the SC & ST Act. However, the Court can release the person on pre-arrest bail if the Court is satisfied that no offence is prima facie made out.

On a prima facie reading of the status report and the F.I.R., the Bench found that the accused had given beatings to the deceased (a member of the scheduled caste) and confined him to the cowshed because the deceased happened to touch the house of the accused, and she wanted a sacrificial goat for purification.

 “The accused and the deceased belonged to the same village, and as per Section 8(c) of the SC & ST Act, there is a presumption that the accused was aware of the caste of the deceased. Beating and threatening a person are prima facie punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC, which have been mentioned in Section 3(2)(va). Since the beatings were given because the deceased had touched the house of the accused, which he was not entitled to do because of his caste, prima facie, the offence was committed because of the caste of the deceased", it noted.

The Bench upheld the objection raised by Additional Advocate General that the present petition for pre-arrest bail was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 18 of the SC & ST Act. “Hence, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Pushpa Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:34576)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Suman Thakur

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Jitender K. Sharm, Senior Advocate Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate R.R. Rahi

Click here to read/download Order