Supreme Court Allows Anticipatory Bail Where FIR Lacked Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act; Release Subject to Trial Court Conditions

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra heard an appeal against the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order dismissing an application for anticipatory bail. The petition arose from an FIR alleging abduction, criminal intimidation, assault and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in relation to a dispute over temple lands and trust affairs.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that in the event the appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 69 of 2024 he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose. The Bench observed that, on a prima facie reading of the FIR, there was “only one alleged instance of an insult/caste slur” and no allegation that it was made in the presence of members of the general public, which was an essential ingredient for attracting certain provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In light of this overall perspective and considering the allegations in the FIR, our prima facie conclusion is that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail as per the principles laid down by this Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Shajan Skaria (supra)." The Bench further directed that “...he shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may deem fit to impose,” and clarified that it had “not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the observations made in our order will have no bearing on the conduct of the trial or on the final decision in the criminal proceedings.”

Background

The dispute arose from a long-standing association between the appellant and the complainant in trust activities relating to a temple. The complainant, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, alleged that the appellant pressured him to transfer certain lands, threatened to kill him, used a caste slur, and prevented him from reciting prayers. The FIR recorded that on 18 April 2024 the complainant was abducted and confined at various locations and that on 29 April 2024 he was taken to a petrol station where he was threatened with knives and beaten, which purportedly led him to accede to the transfer of land out of fear. The police later rescued the complainant and arrested four accused persons.

FIR No. 69 of 2024 was registered at G.D. Nellore UPS on 18.04.2024 under Sections 364, 511, 307, 343, 419, 506, 120B and 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court rejected anticipatory bail and the High Court dismissed the ensuing criminal appeal. On special leave, the Supreme Court conducted a prima facie examination of the FIR and found that the allegations of a caste insult were singular and not alleged to have been made in “public view,” as required by precedents including Shajan Skaria. The Court treated other allegations of conspiracy and intimidation as largely inferential, noting that such matters could be investigated and established during trial. Relying on principles in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria, the Bench concluded that the appellant was prima facie entitled to anticipatory bail, while expressly reserving final adjudication for the trial. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of; the Court afforded the trial court the discretion to fix bail terms and conditions.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17738 of 2024 (2025 INSC 390) Case Title: Deepak Kumar Tala v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sivagnanam K, Adv.; Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.; Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR; Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv.; Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR; Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.