Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail In SC/ST Case Citing Victim's 'No Objection'

The Chhattisgarh High Court has paved the way for the release of five individuals accused of caste-based abuse, prioritizing the victim's lack of objection and the completion of the investigation over existing criminal antecedents. In a significant procedural affirmation, the Bench highlighted that previous records under unrelated statutes do not bar the grant of bail when the primary investigation is concluded and the complainant expresses no grievance regarding the release.

Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey heard the criminal appeals challenging the rejection of bail by the Special Court. The appellants had moved the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after their regular bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS were dismissed by the Special Judge at Kawardha.

Key Takeaways

Victim Consent Influences Bail

Court underscored that the victim’s statement of 'no objection' during video-conferencing is a material factor in determining the necessity of continued incarceration.

Nature of Antecedents Matters

Determined that criminal history under unrelated laws, such as gambling acts, does not automatically disqualify an accused from bail in special statute cases like the SC/ST Act.

Trial Integrity Conditions

Imposed stringent conditions to ensure that the liberty granted does not translate into the abuse of the legal process or delay in evidence recording.

Criminal Antecedents and Similarity of Charges

The Chhattisgarh High Court noted that while the appellants had four criminal antecedents under the Gambling Act, none were of a similar nature to the current charges. The Bench noted that since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, there was little justification for further detention, especially given the victim's stance. The Bench observed that “Although the appellants have four criminal antecedents under the Gambling Act, none involve offences of a similar nature to the present charge. Furthermore, the investigation has been concluded, charge-sheet has been filed and appellants are in jail since 23.06.2026. Also, the victim appeared before this Court through video-conferencing on 12.08.2026 and has submitted that he has no objection in granting bail to the appellants.”

Ratio

In cases involving the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where the investigation is complete, the accused has no similar criminal antecedents, and the victim expresses no objection to the grant of bail, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to set aside a lower court's refusal of bail to ensure the right to liberty is not unnecessarily curtailed during the pendency of the trial.

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR lodged by Ramkumar Markam, who alleged that on June 22, 2026, the appellants intercepted his vehicle and hurled caste-based abuses in full public view at Kawardha. The police registered offences under Sections 126(2), 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the BNS along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants argued they were falsely implicated and had been in custody since June 23, 2026. The State opposed the bail, citing the prima facie involvement of the appellants in a caste-based offence. However, considering the filing of the charge-sheet and the victim's statement, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the Special Court's order dated June 25, 2026, and allowed the appeals.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA No. 1589 of 2026 and CRA No. 1602 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:41528
Case Title: Gokul Kaushik and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy.A.G.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 18242