SC Grants Anticipatory Bail: Caste Slur Not in Public View

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the High Court's order dismissing the appellant's appeal against the rejection of his application for anticipatory bail.

The matter stemmed from an FIR detailing allegations that the appellant, along with others, forced the complainant (Respondent No. 3), who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, to transfer certain lands related to a temple trust they had jointly established.

The FIR further alleged that upon the complainant's refusal, the appellant issued threats, used a caste slur, and instructed him to cease reciting prayers. Subsequently, the complainant was allegedly abducted and confined at various locations before being taken to a petrol station where threats of death were made to compel the land transfer. The complainant eventually agreed out of fear and was later rescued by the police, leading to the arrest of four accused persons. The FIR invoked Sections 364, 511, 307, 343, 419, 506, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Supreme Court, upon a prima facie examination of the FIR, observed a critical deficiency concerning the applicability of Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that while an instance of an insult/caste slur was alleged, there was no allegation that the offending statement was made in the presence of members of the general public. This, the Court emphasized, is an essential ingredient for attracting the aforementioned sections of the SC/ST Act, requiring the statement to be made within "public view", citing its various previous rulings such as in the matter of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (Click to Download) et al, and particularly Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (Click to Download).

Furthermore, the Apex Court found that the allegations regarding the appellant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy for the complainant's abduction and criminal intimidation were only inferential in nature and would require establishment during trial. The Court also took note of the long-standing association between the appellant and the complainant since 2012 in the temple's activities, culminating in the formation of a trust with both as trustees, and the subsequent emergence of disputes in 2017 leading to multiple civil suits concerning the temple's properties and funds.

Considering the overall perspective and the allegations in the FIR, the Supreme Court reached a prima facie conclusion that the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in accordance with the principles laid down in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (Click to Download) and Shajan Skaria (supra). Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that in the event of the appellant's arrest in connection with same FIR, he shall be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that its observations would not influence the trial or the final decision in the criminal proceedings.

CORAM: JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA & JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Between: DEEPAK KUMAR TALA VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS 2025 INSC 390
Date of Judgment: 25-03-2025