Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(J&K) 68

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJESH SEKHRI, J.
Santosha Devi - Petitioner
Vs.
UT of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
CRM(M) No. 63 of 2026
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s J. P.Gandhi and Nipun Gandhi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

Anticipatory bail not barred under SC/ST Act if FIR and video evidence do not prima facie disclose caste-based insult or abuse ingredients; court verifies electronic material without resolving factual disputes.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 18 and 18A - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Anticipatory bail - Bar under Sections 18 and 18A not applicable if allegations in FIR do not prima facie disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s); necessary that insult or intimidation linked to caste identity with intent to humiliate in public view or abuse by caste name; single caste-based word sufficient if targeted at caste; court may examine available electronic evidence like video recordings to verify prima facie case without mini-trial. (Paras 20, 22, 24, 26, 32, 34, 37, 41)

(B) Offence under Section 3(1)(s) - Requires abuse by caste name in public view, laced with caste or caste name hurled as abuse; mere abuse or caste name utterance insufficient without caste-denigrating intent causing humiliation. (Paras 22, 23)

(C) Interpretation of alleged slur - Disputes over local meaning as caste slur versus religious symbol or gender-specific term not resolvable at bail stage; statements of local witnesses confirming caste link noted but video showing only commotion without audible slur overrides for prima facie assessment. (Paras 25, 28, 41)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, general category member, sought anticipatory bail after trial court rejected pre-arrest bail application in case alleging assault with scissor and uttering derogatory caste slur during public road inauguration function; FIR claimed unprovoked attack causing injuries and public caste-based humiliation of scheduled caste complainant; investigation recorded eyewitness statements, local officials confirming slur as caste-linked to scheduled caste, collected videos and caste certificates; son arrested and bailed.

Findings of Court:
Video evidence depicts assault but no clear audible caste slur; press statement admits self-defence assault without caste abuse reference; thus no prima facie ingredients under Sections 3(1)(r),(s) despite other offences possibly made out.

Issues: Whether word uttered constitutes caste name abuse or intentional caste humiliation in public view; whether statutory bar on anticipatory bail applies given investigation material and FIR allegations; resolvability of word's meaning at bail stage.

Ratio Decidendi: For anticipatory bail bar to apply, FIR must prima facie reveal offence ingredients; court scrutinizes substance beyond illusory phrasing, examines public domain evidence like videos; here, lack of audible slur in recording means no bar, bail grantable subject to conditions. Result : Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted on furnishing bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with conditions.

Table of Content
1. public assault and alleged caste slur 'chinal'. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. 'chinal' not caste slur; intent required. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. evidence supports prima facie sc/st offences. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. bail allowed if no prima facie sc/st case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. no mini-trial for disputed word meaning. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. single caste-based slur constitutes s.3(1)(s). (Para 33 , 34)
7. video shows no audible caste slur. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
8. anticipatory bail granted with conditions. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SEKHRI, J.

1. Aggrieved of order dated 21.01.2026 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Bhadewah [“the trial Court”], vide which, her application for pre-arrest bail came to be dismissed, petitioner has preferred this composite petition under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’].

2. An overview of the prosecution case is that on 09.01.2026, respondent No.2, [“the complainant”] at about 1700 hours, lodged a written report with Police Station, Doda, for registration of FIR against the petitioner, a member of District Development Council Kastigarh and her sons for the commission of cognizable offences during a public function. It was alleged that on 08.01.2026, during the inauguration of a road at Kastigarh, where MLA Doda, DDC Chairman and DDC vice Chairperson were present as Chief Dignitaries, sons of the petitioner with her connivance and connivance of their supporters, in furtherance of common criminal intention and without any provocation, attacked the complainant and others present at the venue. They indulged in physical violence, use of criminal force, intimidation and threats thereby disturbing public order and creating panic and chaos in the public function. Petitioner, Santosha Devi was armed with a sharp edged weapon, a scissor, with which she inflicted injuries upon the complainant party thereby endangering their lives. Complainant was brutally assaulted and he sustained injuries.

3. Allegation of the complainant, in particular, is that petitioner, with deliberate attempt, publicly abused, humiliated and insulted him by passing caste based derogatory slur “chinal”, knowing fully well that he belongs to ‘Megh’ community a Scheduled Caste category. Entire occurrence was captured in a video recording and photographs were circulated on social media platforms.

4. On the receipt of this complaint, FIR No. 09 of 2026, for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS read with Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act came to be registered.

5. The investigating Agency, besides legal formalities recorded statements of key eye-witnesses, under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. Statements of Lumbardar and Chowkidar of the area also came to be recorded who confirmed that term “Chinal” is locally understood as an abusive caste based slur, linked to “Megh” caste, an SC category intended to insult members of the community. The electronic evidence including videos and photographs of the incident was also collected. Caste certificates of the complainant and accused were obtained from competent authorities, which verified that complainant belongs to ‘Megh’, a Scheduled Caste category and accused belongs to ‘Jaral’, Rajput General Category.

6. The investigating agency, thus concluded that offences under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act were established against accused persons, namely, Santosha Devi, the petitioner and her son Swarn Veer Singh Jaral. Accused Swarn Veer Singh Jaral, who was arrested on 26.01.2026 came to be released on bail by the trial Court on 30.01.2026.

7. Learned trial court rejected bail plea of the petitioner, primarily on the ground that since word “Chinal” has been uttered by her to the complainant, a m