Hurling Caste Abuse Near Gate Of Premises May Fall Within 'Public View': Telangana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act

The Telangana High Court has held that allegations of caste-based abuse hurled near the entrance of a house and an adjoining public road may prima facie satisfy the requirement of having occurred in "public view" under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 105]

Adding that the question of whether the incident was actually witnessed by members of the public can only be determined during trial, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.

Justice N. Tukaramji observed that the Court cannot, at the stage of pre-arrest bail, conclusively determine whether the alleged incident took place "within public view".

"The complaint, the crime details, and the material presently available indicate, prima facie, that the complainant was allegedly pushed out through the gate and that the incident occurred either at the entrance of the house or on the adjoining C.C. road. Such a place cannot, at this preliminary stage, be conclusively characterized as being outside the ambit of 'public view'. Whether independent witnesses were present, whether the alleged utterances were audible to members of the public, and whether the ingredients of the offences are ultimately established are matters to be determined during the course of investigation and, if necessary, at trial."

The Court held that, in view of the allegations in the complaint, "the ingredients constituting offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act cannot be excluded at this stage." Consequently, it held that the statutory embargo under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act operated and anticipatory bail could not be granted.

The petitioner was booked in FIR No.118 of 2026 registered at Elanthakunta Police Station for offences under Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 296(b) (obscene acts and songs) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act.

According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, had pledged his wife's gold ornament with the petitioner's father about three years earlier. Although he allegedly repaid the loan with interest, the ornament was not returned. When he visited the petitioner's father's house at about 11:30 a.m. on June 6, 2026 to demand its return, the petitioner allegedly abused him by intentionally referring to his caste name, used filthy language and pushed him out through the gate of the house. The complaint was lodged on June 11, 2026.

Seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner argued that the complaint was false and had been filed to exert pressure in what was essentially a private monetary dispute. He contended that there was an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the complaint and that the alleged caste abuse took place within the precincts of his residence. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Kurup Dayal v. State, he argued that an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is made out only if the alleged insult occurs "within public view".

The State opposed the plea, submitting that the investigation indicated that the incident did not occur exclusively inside the house but near the entrance gate and on the adjoining cement concrete (C.C.) road, which was accessible to the public. It argued that the complaint contained specific allegations of intentional caste-based abuse and humiliation, thereby disclosing a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act.

The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the legal principles laid down in Hitesh Verma and Kurup Dayal. However, it observed that while deciding an application for anticipatory bail, the Court cannot undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or conclusively determine disputed questions of fact. Whether members of the public were present, whether the alleged caste-based remarks were audible to them, and whether the ingredients of the offence are ultimately established are matters to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial, it held.

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail may be considered only where the complaint does not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act. Since the allegations in the present case prima facie attracted Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, the statutory bar applied. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Gorla Jagadeeshwar v. State of Telangana

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 8890 of 2026

Appearance: Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy for the petitioner; Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 105