After completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet, bail cannot be denied solely on speculative apprehension of threat to the victim unless supported by concrete material. Objections of the complainant under Section 15-A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act must be substantiated by factual evidence and cannot override the fundamental right to personal liberty. Prolonged judicial custody without demonstrable risk of interference with justice renders refusal of bail arbitrary.

advocatemmmohan

---

SC/ST (PoA) Act — Section 15-A — Right of victim to notice — Compliance — Effect

Issuance of notice to the victim under Section 15-A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act satisfies statutory compliance; however, opposition by the victim must still be supported by material facts. Objections unsupported by evidence cannot by themselves justify denial of bail.

(Paras 6–8)

---

Bail — Custodial detention — Prolonged incarceration — Consideration

Where the accused are in judicial custody for a substantial period and investigation stands concluded, continued detention without cogent reasons amounts to unjustified curtailment of personal liberty.

(Paras 4, 5, 7–9)

---

Bail — Conditions — Safeguards

While granting bail, the Court may impose appropriate conditions including:

• execution of personal bonds and sureties;

• restriction on leaving the country;

• prohibition on intimidating or influencing the victim; and

• liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation upon violation.

(Para 10)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

---

Facts

• FIR registered on 22.09.2025 in Crime No.228 of 2025 of Nandyal Taluk Urban Police Station.

• Alleged offences under:

  • Sections 118(1), 118(2) r/w 5 BNS, 2023, and

  • Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.

• Accused (A-1 to A-3) arrested on 02.12.2025 and remanded to judicial custody.

• Bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 dismissed by Special Court on 16.12.2025.

• Sole ground for rejection: apprehension that accused may threaten the victim.

---

Findings of the High Court

1. Investigation completed and charge-sheet filed on 12.12.2025 — no scope for interference with investigation. (Para 5, 7)

2. Victim’s apprehension of threat was not supported by any material indicating intimidation or attempts to cause alarm after registration of FIR. (Para 7)

3. The Special Court relied only on objections filed by the complainant, without factual foundation. (Para 7–8)

4. The predicate offence under Section 118(1) BNS involved injury to the leg and the victim was out of danger. (Para 7)

5. Continued incarceration of the appellants for about 50 days, despite completion of investigation, was unjustified. (Paras 4–9)

---

Error in the Special Court’s Order

The High Court held that:

• refusal of bail solely on speculative apprehension,

• without supporting material, and

• after completion of investigation,

is unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

(Paras 8–10)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. After completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet, bail cannot be denied solely on speculative apprehension of threat to the victim unless supported by concrete material.

2. Objections of the complainant under Section 15-A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act must be substantiated by factual evidence and cannot override the fundamental right to personal liberty.

3. Prolonged judicial custody without demonstrable risk of interference with justice renders refusal of bail arbitrary.