Back
Grants Bail to Man Accused of Objecting to SC/ST Member's Marriage Invitation
In a notable ruling that underscores the fine line between caste-based animosity and personal disputes, the has granted to a man accused of violating the . The applicant was alleged to have portrayed the complainant as a “bootlegger” and expressed objection to inviting a member of the SC/ST community to a wedding in the Brahmin community. The decision, delivered by Justice Hasmukh D Suthar, draws heavily on the 's precedent in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (), which clarified that not every insult or intimidation attracts the stringent provisions of the Atrocities Act unless it is specifically founded on the victim's caste identity.
The case arose from a criminal appeal against a sessions court order that had rejected the appellant’s bail plea. The appellant faced charges under , which penalises any non-SC/ST person who promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against SC/ST members through spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations. The provision carries a minimum imprisonment of six months and a maximum of five years.
A Question of Caste Prejudice or Mere Personal Rivalry?
The prosecution’s case was built on a video uploaded by the appellant in which he allegedly referred to the complainant as a bootlegger. Additionally, the appellant was accused of stating that a person from the SC/ST community ought not to be invited to a marriage function of the Brahmin community. The complainant argued that these actions were intended to insult and degrade him on account of his caste, thus falling squarely within the ambit of the Atrocities Act.
However, the High Court examined the allegations through the lens of the ’s ruling in Hitesh Verma , which had held that the bar under Section 18 of the Act — which ordinarily prevents the grant of — would not apply if the alleged insult or intimidation does not demonstrably stem from the victim’s membership in a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The judgment emphasised that the offence must be perpetrated “” and must be directly linked to the victim’s caste.
Legal Hurdle: The Bar Under Section 18
creates a significant obstacle for accused persons seeking pre-arrest or by imposing a . Courts have consistently held that this bar is not absolute and must yield to the facts of each case. In the present matter, the appellant’s counsel argued that the allegations were rooted in a personal, non-caste-related rivalry and that the video in question did not amount to promoting caste enmity. They contended that the complainant’s own conduct — allegedly involving illegal liquor trade — formed the basis of the appellant’s remarks, not caste prejudice.
Justice Suthar noted that the in Hitesh Verma had clearly distinguished between ordinary insults and those driven by caste hatred. The Apex Court had observed that “all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” Furthermore, the offence must occur in a place open to public view — such as a lawn visible from a road — rather than inside a private home with only relatives or friends present.
The ’s Guidance in Hitesh Verma
The Hitesh Verma judgment has become a cornerstone for evaluating the applicability of the SC/ST Act in cases where the caste element is ambiguous. The elaborated that the phrase “” does not merely mean that the remark was made in a public place; it requires that the act be seen by members of the public unrelated to the parties. If the insult is made inside a building and heard only by acquaintances, the essential ingredient of “public view” is missing, and the offence under the Act may not be made out.
Applying this test, the found that the allegations against the appellant did not sufficiently demonstrate that his remarks were made “” or that they were motivated solely by the complainant’s caste. The court observed that the appellant’s objection to the complainant’s presence at a Brahmin marriage could, on the surface, appear casteist, but the surrounding circumstances suggested a personal vendetta arising from the complainant’s alleged bootlegging activities. The video, while objectionable, appeared to target the complainant’s character rather than his Scheduled Caste status.
Court’s Observations: Public View and
Justice Suthar emphasised that the mere invocation of a caste-related provision in the FIR does not automatically attract the bar against bail. The court must scrutinise the material on record to determine whether the offence is “on account of” the victim’s caste. In this case, the court found no clear evidence that the appellant’s statements were made in a place frequented by the general public or that they were intended to incite communal hatred. The judge remarked that if the appellant were to be kept in custody pending trial, it would amount to a “,” which is contrary to the principle that “.”
The court also considered the fact that the appellant had no prior criminal record and was a permanent resident, making him unlikely to abscond. These factors, combined with the doubts surrounding the , tilted the balance in favour of granting bail.
Bail Granted: Avoided
The High Court, therefore, allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the sessions court’s order. The appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, cooperating with the investigation, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court made it clear that the observations in the bail order were tentative and would not influence the final trial.
Legal experts have welcomed the judgment as a reaffirmation of Hitesh Verma and a necessary check against the misuse of the SC/ST Act. The ruling sends a strong message that the mere presence of a caste reference in a complaint does not justify the invocation of Section 18’s bar on bail. It also reinforces the requirement of “public view” as a critical element, ensuring that the Act is not used as a tool for personal vendettas.
Conclusion: A Precedent for Similar Cases?
The ’s decision provides clarity for lower courts dealing with bail applications under the SC/ST Act. By applying the Hitesh Verma framework, the court has demonstrated that the bar under Section 18 is not an automatic disqualification. Each case must be assessed on its merits, with a careful examination of whether the alleged insult or intimidation is “on account of” caste and whether it occurred in a setting meeting the “public view” standard.
For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a useful reference for arguing that the SC/ST Act’s stringent bail provisions should not shield patently non-caste-based disputes. As the trial progresses, the ultimate question of whether the appellant’s remarks were indeed caste-driven will be determined by the lower court based on evidence. For now, the High Court’s order balances the rights of the accused with the need to preserve the integrity of the Atrocities Act, ensuring that the law protects genuine victims without being weaponised in personal skirmishes.
