Anticipatory bail can be considered where the record does not clearly establish the offence was committed ‘within public view’ as required under the SC/ST Act; Court reiterates that Section 18 bar will not apply in absence of prima facie material. Decision upholds and applies existing Supreme Court precedent, reaffirming its binding authority for subordinate courts in similar instances.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA-S/2738/2025 of RAMESH KUMAR ALIAS MAKHNU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011393632025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in cases under the SC/ST Act when there is doubt about whether alleged casteist remarks were uttered ‘within public view’ as mandated by the Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and others – 2014(3) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 1793 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Analysis of “public view” requirement under SC/ST Act; burden of proof on prosecution to show prima facie applicability before denying bail; cited Supreme Court direction on arrest policy |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Complainant alleged objectionable casteist remarks and threats by appellant after publication of news article about illegal gambling; contradictions in witness testimony; prior complaints dismissed for want of proof. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court in similar factual circumstances |
| Follows | Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and others – 2014(3) Law Herald (Supreme Court) 1793 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act (bar on anticipatory bail) does not operate where prima facie material for the offence—especially the “public view” requirement—remains doubtful.
- Contradictory witness statements or lack of clarity on whether remarks were made in public view can justify grant of anticipatory bail.
- Supreme Court’s guidelines on non-automatic arrest and anticipatory bail in cases where maximum sentence is under seven years (Arnesh Kumar) expressly applied to SC/ST Act cases where prima facie case is not made out.
- Useful citation for bail applications where prosecution evidence is internally inconsistent or where previous complaints have lapsed for want of proof.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the witness statements and found varying accounts regarding whether the objectionable remarks were made and in what presence, noting inconsistency about whether the remarks were made by the appellant, his wife, or both.
- The “public view” element under the SC/ST Act was not prima facie established from the investigation or the summoning order.
- The Court observed that earlier complaints on the same issue were dismissed due to lack of evidence, and even a writ petition was dismissed in default.
- The Court followed the Supreme Court’s direction in Arnesh Kumar regarding bail and arrest policies where the maximum punishment is less than seven years.
- Consequently, it held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act on anticipatory bail was not attracted in this case and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Falsely implicated; allegations previously found to be unsupported by evidence.
- Earlier complaints and a writ petition by complainant were unsuccessful/dismissed.
- Provisions of SC/ST Act not clearly attracted due to absence of prima facie material.
- Maximum sentence for alleged offences below seven years; Arnesh Kumar applies; bail should be granted.
Respondent
- Derogatory casteist remarks were found in inquiry, attracting SC/ST Act.
- Appellant not previously involved in any other criminal cases.
Factual Background
On 24.01.2020, the complainant, from the Balmiki caste, published news alleging illegal gambling by the appellant. Following this, on 17.04.2020, the appellant (from the Suniara/Sharma caste) allegedly used casteist slurs and threatened the complainant and his family, eventually leading to an attack causing injuries. The police, under alleged political pressure, failed to act promptly, and instead registered an FIR against the complainant. The complainant’s previous complaints and writ petition also did not yield results due to lack of evidence or default.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 18 of the SC/ST Act: Statutory bar on anticipatory bail does not apply unless there exists prima facie material of an offence under the Act.
- Section 3 of SC/ST Act: ‘Public view’ requirement analyzed; contradictions in witness statements made this element doubtful at the bail stage.
- Supreme Court’s directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding non-automatic arrest and entitlement to bail where the maximum sentence does not exceed seven years applied.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reiterates settled law and applies Supreme Court directions regarding anticipatory bail and the SC/ST Act bar, maintaining consistency with higher judicial precedent.