Introduction
The Patna High Court has ruled that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked automatically when the alleged caste-related insult or threat is ‘abuse not in public view’. The Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of using caste-based slurs, saying that the basic requirement of the Act, that the incident must happen in a public setting, was missing.
Through this decision the court clarified how courts should deal with the cases under SC/ST Act where personal disputes are mixed.
What Led to the Case?
The case came from a land deal in Bhojpur district. According to the complainant, he paid an advance for a piece of land, but the sale never took place. Due to this, there is an argument between him and the accused. The complainant filed an FIR saying that during the argument the accused had used caste-based abusive words.
However, to initiate this kind of accusation there is a need for a public incident. Which means that the abuse must be made in a public place or before any 3rd person who saw or heard the incident. This is an important factor to consider whether the SC/ST Act applies when the alleged ‘abuse not in public view’ happens privately between the parties.
Why ‘Public View’ Matters
The Court looked at Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which deal with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC/ST community. Both sections clearly state that the abuse must occur “in any place within public view.”
In this case, the FIR indicated the argument happened privately, with no independent witnesses present. Because this was clearly a situation of ‘abuse not in public view’, the Court said the SC/ST Act could not be applied as the complainant claimed.
The Court said that this is an essential part of the law, it cannot be overlooked. It helps the court to differentiate between private arguments and public humiliation based on caste.
Why the Court Granted Bail
Under the SC/ST Act, courts are generally prohibited from granting anticipatory bail. But this bar applies only when the allegations properly fall under the Act. Since this case involved ‘abuse not in public view’, the Court said the restriction on anticipatory bail did not apply here.
The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused. However, it puts a condition that the accused must cooperate in the investigation.
Conclusion
The court made it clear that allegations under SC/ST Act are not automatically attracted just because caste-related words were allegedly used. The alleged act must be done in public or at least before a third person. Personal quarrel between two persons does not come under SC/ST Act. Through this decision the court made it clear that people cannot be accused of private disputes. The act must be done in public to attract SC/ST Act provisions.