Provisions Of SC/ST Act Not Attracted When Alleged Abuse Is Hurled Over Phone: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has observed that where caste-based abuses are allegedly hurled over the telephone and not in public view, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not be prima facie attracted, rendering an application for anticipatory bail under the special statute not maintainable.

The observation was made by Justice Jay Sengupta while disposing of an anticipatory bail application filed in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with other bailable offences.

At the outset, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application for anticipatory bail was maintainable since no prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act was made out. It was argued that the FIR itself alleged that the abuses were hurled over the telephone, and therefore lacked the essential ingredient of being committed “in any place within public view”. It was further submitted that the remaining offences invoked in the FIR were bailable in nature.

Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, placing reliance on the case diary and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation.

After considering the rival submissions, Justice Sengupta observed that the case presented a peculiar factual situation. The Court noted that the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclosed that the alleged abuses were made over the telephone and not in public view.

In light of this, the Court held that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not prima facie attracted, and consequently, the anticipatory bail application under the special Act was not maintainable.

However, taking note of the fact that the other allegations levelled against the petitioner were bailable, the Court proceeded to mould the relief in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, while disposing of the anticipatory bail application, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to surrender before the concerned jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court further directed that if such a bail application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

Importantly, the Court ordered that the petitioner shall not be arrested during the said period of four weeks, thereby granting interim protection.

With these observations and directions, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of.

Case: CRM(A) 4050/2024

Case No: In the matter of: Nurul Aras

Click here to read order