‘Mere Abuse Not Offence Under SC/ST Act’: Jammu Kashmir HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To DDC Member
Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that the SC/ST Act would not apply unless the essential ingredients of caste-based humiliation were clearly made out.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : April 3, 2026 at 6:59 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted anticipatory bail to District Development Council (DDC) member Santosha Devi in a case arising from an alleged assault and caste-slur incident during a road inauguration event in Doda. The court ruled that the material on record did not prima facie establish offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In his 15-page judgment, Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that while allegations of assault may still invite prosecution under general penal law, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act would not apply unless the essential ingredients of caste-based humiliation were clearly made out from the complaint and supporting material.
“... It is evident from the aforesaid that merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or merely uttering a caste name by itself would not be sufficient to constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, and it is necessary that accused abuses a member of such community 'by the caste name' in any place within public view,” the bench observed.
The case stems from an FIR lodged at Doda police station on January 9 over an incident a day earlier during the inauguration of a road at Kastigarh.
According to the complaint, Devi, along with her sons and supporters, allegedly attacked the complainant and others at the public function. The complainant, Hakam Chand, also alleged that she used the cuss word “c***al” as a caste-based insult, knowing that he belonged to the Megh community, a Scheduled Caste.
Police had invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to assault and criminal intimidation, along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which deal with intentional caste-based insult and abuse in public view.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the expression allegedly used did not amount to a caste name and had alternate meanings in local and religious usage. The court, however, said such disputed questions could only be conclusively examined during trial and not at the bail stage.
At the same time, the court closely examined the electronic evidence relied upon by the prosecution, including the video recording of the alleged incident and a subsequent press conference by the petitioner.
In a key finding that formed the basis of relief, Justice Sekhri said, “Although the petitioner, in the video recording collected by the investigating agency, can be seen assaulting someone, however, in so far as offences under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are concerned, nothing incriminating is discernible from the recording.”
The judge further noted that the footage contained only “commotion” and that “nothing is clearly audible.” He also found that in the video of the press conference, Devi admitted only to assaulting the complainant party in self-defence and did not make any admission regarding caste-based abuse.
Summing up the findings, the court observed, “There is nothing in the transcript of the video recording or the press conference to even prima facie indicate that necessary ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are made out against the petitioner.”
On that reasoning, the High Court held that the bar contained in Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act would not prevent the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case.
The court directed that in the event of arrest, Devi be released on bail on a surety bond of Rs 25,000 and a personal bond of the like amount. It imposed conditions requiring her to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer when summoned, not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station without permission, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and should not influence the trial court during further proceedings in the case.
Also Read
