The Supreme Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to several accused in a case involving alleged caste-based abuse, making it clear that the credibility of a First Information Report cannot be questioned merely because it originated from a police officer’s statement rather than a victim’s complaint.
The case concerned allegations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran overturned an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had earlier granted pre-arrest protection to the accused after casting doubts on the authenticity of the FIR.
The dispute traces back to tensions between two neighbourhood groups. Residents belonging to a Scheduled Caste community complained that wastewater from houses belonging to members of an upper-caste community was being channelled into their homes. When the affected families protested, the situation quickly escalated into a confrontation.
Police officers reached the area to calm the situation and attempt a settlement. According to the prosecution, the clash intensified during this intervention. Members of the opposing group allegedly used firearms and directed caste-based insults at the complainant side. The altercation was also said to have been captured on video.
Based on what a police officer present at the scene witnessed and the material available at the time, an FIR was registered invoking offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Arms Act.
Investigators also looked into a counter-case filed against the complainant group over the same incident. That complaint was later closed after the investigation concluded that those named in it were not responsible for any wrongdoing.
The accused then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court granted relief, placing considerable emphasis on the fact that the FIR had been lodged on the statement of a police officer rather than on a direct complaint by the alleged victims. It also questioned whether the allegations were sufficient to attract provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Challenging this decision, the affected members of the Scheduled Caste community approached the Supreme Court.
While setting aside the High Court’s order, the apex court observed that the source of the information leading to an FIR is not decisive. What matters, the bench noted, is whether the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The court pointed out that the High Court had focused excessively on the origin of the FIR while overlooking the fact that the police officer who gave the statement was present during the incident and had personally witnessed the events.
The bench also remarked that crucial materials were ignored while granting bail. These included the investigation report and an affidavit submitted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police that referred to the firing of gunshots and the use of casteist slurs during the confrontation.
Finding the reasoning of the High Court unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the accused. They have been directed to surrender before the authorities within fifteen days.
