New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the accused in a case arising out of an alleged caste-based attack on members of a Scheduled Caste community in village Chandbhan, District Faridkot, Punjab. The Court held that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been made out against the accused and that the police’s attempt at reconciliation between the parties would not bar them from taking cognizance of criminal acts committed during the incident.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, before whom the appellants had approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused by the High Court.
The incident underlying the appeals took place on February 5, 2025. The dispute originated over the alleged diversion of drainage into the residences of marginalized members of the Scheduled Caste community, which prompted them to rise in protest. The police were present at the location in an attempt to settle what had begun as a civil dispute. It is alleged that while the police were present, members of the upper caste, led by the accused, unleashed violence on the Scheduled Caste community, during which shots were fired and casteist slurs were levelled against the victims.
The specific case of the complainants was that they had been prevented from registering an FIR and that the criminal acts were committed while the police were present at the scene. The FIR that was eventually registered was not based on the complaint of the victims but on a First Information Statement given by a police official of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, which was based on a video uploaded on social media showing a person firing a gun in the village. The Supreme Court noted that the FIR was presumably registered after the video surfaced, in anticipation of public backlash for police inaction despite their presence at the scene.
The High Court had granted anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that the FIR had not been registered on the complaint of the alleged victim and that the FIR did not contain an allegation of casteist slurs. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454, and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, to hold that the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted, did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under the Atrocities Act.
The State of Punjab, represented by its Additional Advocate General, did not oppose the bail order but maintained that the police had acted impartially. The State’s case was that the matter began as a civil dispute over drainage, which the police attempted to resolve, and that both parties were called to the police station. The accused appeared, but the group led by the appellants refused to do so, blocked a public road, and subsequently marched to the house of one of the accused. The State also submitted that stones were pelted, injuring police personnel, and that the firing occurred after the march to the accused’s house.
The Supreme Court took particular note of a short affidavit filed before the High Court on behalf of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Subdivision Jaito, District Faridkot. This affidavit specifically narrated the incident of sewage being discharged into the residences of the Scheduled Caste community and referred to casteist slurs as having been uttered by the accused. The affidavit also spoke of injuries caused by a smooth bore firearm discharged from a distance, and of a complaint received regarding threats allegedly levelled against one of the injured witnesses. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adequately engaged with this affidavit before granting anticipatory bail.
The statements of various persons examined by the police, including those of the appellants, were also placed before the Supreme Court. These statements specifically indicated allegations of casteist slurs alongside what was described as an attempt to create a riot by pitting the marginalized section of the village against the upper caste. The investigation report produced before the Court indicated offences not only under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act but also under the Atrocities Act, 1989. Significantly, the FIR registered against the group led by the appellants in relation to the same incident had been closed, with the persons named as accused in that FIR having been found innocent during the investigation.
The Supreme Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the High Court. In Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, the allegation under the Atrocities Act arose from the grant of sanction for prosecution, a context entirely different from the present case involving physical violence and casteist abuse. In Shajan Skaria, the accused was the editor of an online news channel who had uploaded a video raising allegations against a Member of the Legislative Assembly who happened to belong to a Scheduled Caste, and the Court had found that the material did not prima facie indicate that the allegations were related to the complainant’s caste identity. The present case, involving direct physical violence and casteist slurs at the scene, was held to be factually and legally distinct from both precedents.
The Court also noted that the video footage of the incident had been perused both by the High Court and by the Supreme Court itself. The Court declined to elaborate on the contents of the video, noting that it would have to be proven appropriately before the trial court, but stated that it was unable to agree with the High Court’s conclusion that no prima facie culpability could be found from the footage. The Court clarified that it was not the video alone that persuaded it to cancel bail, but that the video had fortified the findings arrived at on the basis of other material, all of which were prima facie in nature and would not govern the trial.
On the question of police attempts at reconciliation, the Supreme Court held that the mere attempt by the police to settle a civil dispute cannot prevent them from taking cognizance of criminal acts committed during or arising from the same incident. The Court also observed that the absence of an FIR registered on the complainant’s own statement, as opposed to a police officer’s statement, would not by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail when the investigation had otherwise brought out clear allegations of offences under the Atrocities Act.
Additionally, the Court reiterated the general principle that it is slow to interfere with orders granting bail, including anticipatory bail, keeping in view the valuable right to liberty, particularly in the context of overcrowded jails and prolonged trials. However, it observed that in cases where the offences are grave and the allegations make out a strong case, courts must exercise caution before granting anticipatory bail. According to the Court, such caution was conspicuously absent in the High Court’s approach to the present case.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed both appeals, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused, and directed them to surrender within a period of fifteen days. All pending applications were disposed of.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. Zian Haider, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General (for State of Punjab); Mr. Santpal Singh Sindhu, Senior Counsel (for Accused-Respondents)
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
