Is SC-ST Act Applicable On Man Belonging To Deprived Scheduled Caste?: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions While Granting Bail

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while granting bail to a man has questioned as to whether the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are applicable on someone belonging to deprived schedule caste.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r), (s) of SC/ST Act.

The single bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed, ".....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? Keeping in view 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, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody any more..."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Harsh Jain while the Respondent was represented by Deputy Advocate General Himani Arora.

Facts of the Case

On one occasion, the Respondent No.2 was present in the labour room of his factory wherein he had installed a saw machine and was taking rest, when the Appellant along with co-accused and 2-3 unknown persons reached there and opened an assault upon him with sticks, rods and iron pipes. To save himself, he rushed out in the street but the assailants threw a brick upon him due to which he fell down. Thereafter they caused injuries to him with the respective weapons that they were carrying in their hands. He was a member of Scheduled Caste. The assailants called him in the name of his caste and while insulting him they proclaimed that they would certainly kill him. After assaulting him and considering him to be dead, they fled from the spot.

The Accused suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime and also took the names of the Appellant and other co-accused. A CCTV footage capturing the entire incident had also been taken into custody. The Appellant was arrested and recorded his disclosure statement and demarcated the place of incident. Investigation now stands completed and challan was presented. The Appellant had moved an Application for grant of regular bail which was dismissed.

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the Additional Sessions Judge ignored the fact that there was delay of three days in lodging of the FIR which was not satisfactorily explained. It was further submitted that the Appellant himself belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and a certificate was issued in his favour. 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.

Reasoning By Court

The Court questioning whether the Applicant could be charged under SC/ ST Act as he himself belonged to the deprived scheduled caste observed, " Keeping in view 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, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody any more. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned."

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Rahul Bundela vs. State of Haryana and another (2025:PHHC:108499)

Click here to read/ download Order