Mere Attempt At Reconciliation Can't Prevent Police From Taking Cognizance: Supreme Court While Cancelling Anticipatory Bail In Caste-Based Violence Case

The Supreme Court, while cancelling an anticipatory bail, has observed that mere attempt at reconciliation cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, "Neither can it be found that there is absence of a prima facie case; which is otherwise as clearly brought out on investigation, nor can be found any political or private vendetta for raising the allegations. Even the police admit that there was tension prevailing in the locality which led to criminal acts being perpetrated. The mere attempt at reconciliation cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts. It is also pertinent that the FIR registered against the group led by the appellants, on the very same incident has been closed, the persons arrayed as accused having been found innocent in the investigation carried out."

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for the Petitioner, while AAG Rajat Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondents.

The Appellants were before the Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondents-Accused in each of these appeals.

The case began with a dispute over drainage water being directed into the homes of people from the Scheduled Caste in the village of Chandbhan. When the community protested, a violent clash occurred involving members of the upper caste group. Despite the police being present, shots were fired, and casteist slurs were allegedly used.

Instead of filing an FIR based on the victims' complaints, the police registered an FIR based on a YouTube video of the firing. Initially, the Trial Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused, but the High Court reversed this decision and granted them anticipatory bail, stating that the FIR did not clearly show a "caste-based" offence under the SC/ST Act. The victims then appealed to the Supreme Court to have that bail cancelled.

The Court said, "This Court is slow to interfere in orders granting bail, even anticipatory bail, keeping in mind the various decisions of this Court emphasizing the valuable right to liberty, more so in the case of under trial prisoners in the background of overcrowded jails and prolonged trials, a malady the courts in this country are grappling with. But, in a fitting case where the offences are gross and the allegations make out a good case, courts should be cautious in giving anticipatory bail; which caution, in the present case was thrown to the winds, is the allegation of Mr. Zian Haider, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who along with a number of other members of the same community were allegedly assaulted, fired at and abused with casteist slurs. The appellants are before this Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent in each of these appeals."

The Appellants argued that the High Court ignored evidence of gunfire and casteist abuse. They claimed the police failed to record their version of events and that the accused were being protected despite the gravity of the violence.

The State maintained that the police acted impartially. They claimed they tried to settle the drainage dispute, but the appellants' group was uncooperative and had blocked roads, leading to a law-and-order situation where stones were thrown at the police.

The Respondents/Accused argued that the case was essentially a civil drainage dispute that had been unfairly turned into a criminal matter. They claimed they only acted in self-defence because a mob had marched toward their home.

The Court said, "We are of the opinion that the facts of the cases referred above cannot be equated to the present case. As we noticed, there is a peculiar circumstance in the present case wherein the FIR was registered on the FIS by a policeman who had made the statement on the basis of a video uploaded on YouTube; presumably on apprehension of public backlash for no action being taken by the police, despite their presence, clearly indicated in the footage. We also notice that the parties had referred to the video of the incident which was also perused by the High Court. We also had the opportunity to peruse the video footage, and we are unable to concur with the opinion of the High Court that prima facie there can be no culpability found. We would not say anything more on the video footage, especially since it would have to be proven appropriately before the trial court."

The Bench noted that evidence from the investigation, including a Deputy Superintendent's affidavit, clearly pointed toward casteist abuse and firearm use.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and cancelled the anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that the identity of the person who lodges the FIR is secondary to the evidence of the crime itself. Since a prima facie case of caste-based violence existed, the accused were not entitled to bail and were ordered to surrender to the authorities.

Cause Title: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13439 of 2025]

Appearances:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, AOR Satya Mitra

Respondents: AAG Rajat Bhardwaj and AORs Siddhant Sharma and Adharsh Verma

Click here to read/download the Order