The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a man accused of portraying complainant as a "bootlegger" and saying that a member of SC/ST community should not be invited to marriage in the Brahmin community. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 223]

The court was hearing a man's appeal booked under Sections 3(1)(U) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whose regular bail plea had been rejected by the Sessions Court.

The provision states that whoever not being an SC/ST member, by words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the SC/ST, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 6 months, which can extend up to 5 years.

It was alleged that the appellant uploaded a video in which he portrayed the complainant as a bootlegger. It was also alleged that the applicant had shown his dislike towards the complainant and to insult the latter's caste the appellant had said that a person belonging to SC/ST community should not be invited to marriage function of the Brahmin Community.

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar referred to Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) and said that in view of this judgment, "bar of section 18 of the Atrocity Act would not be applicable".

For context, under Section 18 of SC/ST Act creates a bar against granting pre-arrest bail to anyone accused of committing an offence under SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma had observed that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Further if an offence is committed in public view such as outside a building, in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view.

The high court thereafter said that if the appellant is not released on bail then it will be pre-trial conviction and considering the principle of bail is rule and jail is exception, present appeal deserved consideration with appropriate conditions.

The court thus granted the appellant bail subject to conditions.

Case title: RAVIKUMAR BHARATBHAI JOSHI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 1646 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 223

Appearance:

MR. KULDEEP K JEBALIYA, MR. MAHAVIR . K. JEBALIYA, MR. RAJDEEP R VALA for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR P S DATTA for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2

MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1

Click Here To Read/Download Order