Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Atrocities Matter
Case Overview
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.
Legislation Involved: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Arms Act
Background and Factual Matrix
The Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate appeals challenging the grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court to accused persons connected with a violent episode involving alleged assault, firing of a weapon, and use of casteist abuses. The appellants, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, contended that they were attacked without provocation and subjected to caste-based slurs by members of an upper caste group led by the respondents.
The genesis of the dispute was reportedly the diversion of sewage water into the homes of marginalized residents belonging to a Scheduled Caste, which triggered protests from the affected community. The appellants alleged that the upper caste group, headed by the accused respondents, reacted with unprovoked violence. A critical grievance of the appellants was that their complaint was never officially recorded, and the FIR that was eventually registered was based on a First Information Statement given by a police officer — apparently prompted by a video of the incident that had gone viral on social media depicting a person firing a gun in village Chandbhan on 05.02.2025.
The State, represented by its Additional Advocate General, maintained a position of impartiality while narrating its own version of events. According to the police account, the incident originated as a civil dispute over drainage, and efforts were made to bring both sides together at the police station for an amicable resolution. The respondents had cooperated and appeared before the police, whereas the group led by the appellants allegedly refused to appear, instead blocking a public road. The police further stated that the appellants' group subsequently marched to the residence of one of the accused, following which the firing took place. The State also highlighted that no injuries resulted from the firing, while police personnel sustained injuries due to stone pelting.
High Court's Reasoning for Granting Anticipatory Bail
The High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused, placed primary reliance on the following considerations:
- The FIR had not been registered based on a direct complaint from the alleged victim but was instead lodged on the statement of a police officer.
- The allegations contained in the FIR, even if accepted at face value, did not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- The High Court drew upon the precedents in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454 and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 to conclude that anticipatory bail could be considered in the absence of a prima facie case under the 1989 Act.
- An affidavit filed by the accused containing a total denial of the allegations was also factored into the High Court's reasoning.