Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
Caste Slur Not Made Within Public View: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused In SC/ST Act Case
|The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal against the decision of the High Court which had dismissed the Appellant’s application for anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused under the SC/ST Act while remarking that the alleged insult/caste slur was not within the public view for attracting Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) of the said Act.
The Court allowed the Appeal against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which rejected the Appellant’s application for anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 364, 511, 307, 343, 419, 506, 120B, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held, “From a prima facie examination of the FIR, it is very clear that there is only one alleged instance of an insult/caste slur but there is no allegation that such offending statement was made in the presence of members of the general public. Hence, an essential ingredient for attracting Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, i.e., that such statement must be made within “public view”...is prima facie not made out from the FIR.”
Advocate Sivagnanam K represented the Appellant, while Advocate Prerna Singh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
It was alleged that the Appellant had set up a Trust for development of a temple along with the complainant, but forced him to transfer certain lands.
Upon refusal to transfer, the Complainant alleged that the Appellant threatened to kill him, abused him by a caste slur, and asked him to stop reciting prayers.
It was further alleged that some accused persons took the Complainant to a petrol station and threatened him to transfer the temple’s lands in the Appellant’s name or that they would kill him. Upon refusing, they beat the Complainant with their hands and threatened him with small knives, which led him to agree to transfer the lands out of fear. Meanwhile, the Complainant was rescued by the police and four accused persons were arrested.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court, citing its decision in Swaran Singh v. State (2008), held that for an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act to be attracted, the offensive statement must be made within “public view.”
“The relationship between the parties, as evident from the FIR itself is that the appellant and the complainant were associated for a long time (since 2012) with the temple’s activities, for which a Trust was formed that named both of them as trustees. It was only in 2017 that certain disputes arose between them and multiple civil suits regarding the temple’s properties and funds were instituted by the appellant,” the Court noted.
“In light of this overall perspective and considering the allegations in the FIR, our prima facie conclusion is that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail as per the principles laid down by this Court,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In this view of the matter, by allowing the present appeal, we direct that in the event the appellant is arrested in connection with FIR…shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may deem fit to impose.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Deepak Kumar Tala v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 390)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Siddhant Buxy; Advocate Sivagnanam K
Respondent: AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar and Devina Sehgal; Advocates Prerna Singh, Samarth Krishan Luthra and Yatharth Kansal