The computation of detention for statutory bail requires the exclusion of any time lost due to trial delays specifically caused by the accused. Discretionary bail may be denied where an accused exhibits a pattern of habitual criminality and the offence involves significant public harm.

J U D G M E N T & O R D E R

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14.A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, assailing the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Learned Special Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Special (SC/ST Atrocities) Case No. 1 of 2023, whereby the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant/accused was rejected.

2. The prosecution case emanates from a written ejahar dated 14.10.2023 lodged by the informant, namely Pradyut Kishore Manikya Debbarma, before the Officer-in-Charge of West Agartala Police Station. In the said ejahar, it was alleged that the appellant had uploaded and circulated a video on a social media platform/channel styled as “Independent,” accompanied by a caption which, according to the informant, contained objectionable and provocative expressions. It was further alleged that the contents of the said video included remarks which were allegedly hate-inducing in nature and directed towards a particular community. Additionally, it was alleged that the appellant made certain scandalous comments concerning the informant, including remarks of a sexually coloured nature in relation to members of the informant’s family, as well as objectionable statements concerning the informant’s political affiliations and supporters.

3. The ejahar further discloses that although the video had been posted in or around July, 2023, no immediate action was taken by the informant at that time. However, subsequently, following the arrest of the appellant and upon queries raised by associates and family members of the informant regarding the steps taken in relation to the said video, the informant proceeded to lodge the complaint. It was also alleged that the said video led to widespread resentment among certain sections of the public.

4. On the basis of the said ejahar, West Agartala P.S. Case No. 2023WAG190 dated 14.10.2023 came to be registered against the appellant under Sections 153A , 354A, 504, 505, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Following registration of the case, the appellant was arrested on 20.10.2023 and has remained in judicial custody since then.

5. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under the aforesaid provisions of law. Thereafter, by order dated 10.12.2024, the Learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant under Sections 153.A, 153.B, 354.A, 294, 354.A(iv), 354.B, 504, 505, and 509 of IPC along with Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

6. It appears from the record that the trial proceeded thereafter, and in the course of trial, as many as 37 witnesses were examined and cross examined. The matter reached the stage of final arguments, and arguments on behalf of the prosecution commenced on 20.02.2026. The case was subsequently fixed for defence arguments on 10.03.2026, indicating that the trial had substantially progressed.

7. In the meantime, on 05.03.2026, the appellant preferred an application for bail before the Learned Special Judge, inter alia, on the grounds that he had been in judicial custody for a considerable period of time, that the trial was at an advanced stage, and that continued detention was not warranted. It was further contende