Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail to the Accused Charged Under the SC/ST Act for Caste Discrimination 

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In this case, the accused filed a bail petition before the High Court. The accused was charged under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court granted interim bail to the petitioner, as he was not eligible for a normal or instant bail. Thus, the Court allowed the petition until it was of the view that his custody was necessary.

Facts of the case

The petitioner was accused of caste discrimination. He was found fleeing his arrest after an FIR was filed against him by the respondent, on 27.6.2020. The charges against the petitioner were under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1) (za)(C) of the above-mentioned Act. The charges filed against the petitioner were non-bailable offenses. Not only this, but the petitioner also surrendered himself to the court. Thereafter, he prayed for bail.

Sections 18 and 18A of the Act restrict an accused charged from filing an anticipatory bail. The accused person, who apprehends an arrest file for an anticipatory bail petition.

Also, the Court had not yet acquired the status report of the case. The prima facie status was that the accused was not eligible for normal bail. It said that once the Court has received the status report, it can look into the facts of the case. After determining the details, the Court can grant normal bail. The petitioner, however, prayed for interim bail until the Court acquires the status report.  The petitioner prayed that the Court could later look into the possibility of a normal bail. The provision for interim bail falls under Section 439 of the CrPC.

Arguments before the Court

The petitioner argued the accusations made against him were false and baseless. He claimed that the case was fictional, and not true. Moreover, he stated that he deserved bail on the above grounds. The petitioner assured the Court that he will abide by all the orders of the Court. Further, he assured the Court that he would cooperate with the investigation.

The Petitioner was a permanent resident of the village. This happens to be the place where the crime was allegedly committed. He assured the Court that due to these reasons, he will not elope again. The learned Advocate General for the respondent (state) waived the service of notice.

Observations made by the Court

The Court observed that there may be more charges under the SC/ST Act in the FIR. The Court stated that the petitioner may not be aware of these charges, under which he can be accused. Moreover, the Court noted that the petitioner’s custody will not serve any purpose. Hence, the Court opined that it required the status report for further determination. The Court also mentioned the need to gather the respondent’s response.

The court deemed the granting of interim bail as fit for the petitioner.

Court’s Judgement

The Court agreed to grant interim bail to the petitioner. This would be valid until it received information about the potential custody of the petitioner.

Further, the petitioner has to follow the orders of the Court. The Court stated he cannot disturb or try to manipulate the investigation. He has to cooperate with the investigation. Also, he should not hamper any evidence or threaten or influence any witnesses. Thus, the Court granted bail.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -