KAUSALYA BHUJANGRAO TELANG v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Anticipatory Bail maintainable in SC/ST Act cases if FIR lacks specific casteist slurs; "Deemed Custody" principle satisfies document recovery requirements without arrest.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:8483
Decision Date: 26-02-2026
List of Laws
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438); The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 27); Bombay Money Lending Act
- Facts: The appellant, Kausalyabai Telang, was accused of abetting the suicide of one Deepak Gajale, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the deceased's father, Deepak had borrowed Rs.70,000 from the appellant and was being continuously harassed and abused on his caste for non-repayment. On 23.11.2025, after receiving a demand for loan recovery and life threats from other co-accused, Deepak committed suicide by jumping into the Godavari river. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had advanced loans without a license and illegally held a property bond as security.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nanded, on 26.12.2025. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellant preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad.
- Issue: Whether the bar on granting anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applies in this case, and whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
- Holding: Yes, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court held that the bar under Section 18 does not apply when the FIR fails to establish a prima facie case under the Act.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that for Section 18 to operate as a bar, the allegations must prima facie constitute an offence under the Act. Upon scrutiny, the Court found the FIR lacked specificity; it did not mention the exact casteist slurs used or the specific dates of the alleged visits. Merely stating that an accused "abused on the basis of caste" without details is insufficient. Furthermore, the dispute appeared predominantly financial. Regarding the need for custodial interrogation to recover a loan bond, the Court applied the "limited custody" principle from Sushila Aggarwal, noting that the appellant's agreement to produce the document satisfies the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act without needing physical arrest.
🔒 For Members Only