SC/ST Act Inapplicability Where Accused Is Also Scheduled Tribe & State’s Failure to Verify CCTV Justifies Anticipatory Bail

1. Introduction

The decision in Mulam Singh Gond v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2026 MPHC-JBP 39891, decided on 18-05-2026 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench) arose from an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The appellant (Mulam Singh Gond) sought anticipatory bail after his application was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A.), Sagar. He apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No.52/2026 (and the narrative also refers to Crime No.55/2026) registered for offences under Sections 87, 64(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution case, in essence, was that the prosecutrix was taken in a car allegedly driven by the appellant, after which co-accused Sanju Patel allegedly committed sexual offences. The appellant’s defence was that his car was procured by the co-accused on a pretext, that the appellant was on official examination/tabulation duty, and that CCTV footage could objectively establish whether he was the driver—yet the police did not verify it.

Two issues were central: (i) whether the SC/ST Act provisions were attracted against the appellant in light of his asserted Scheduled Tribe status, and (ii) whether, on the bail record, the case justified pre-arrest protection, especially given the State’s non-compliance with the High Court’s directions to verify documents and CCTV footage.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. The Court recorded that:

  • The appellant produced a caste certificate showing he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community “Goud”; the Court held that, therefore, “provisions of the Act of 1989 does not attract in respect to the present appellant.”
  • The key allegation against the appellant was limited—he allegedly drove the car when the prosecutrix was taken.
  • Despite the Court’s earlier orders (08.05.2026 and 15.05.2026) directing verification of the appellant’s documents and examination of CCTV footage, the respondent/State failed to submit any verification report.
  • Considering the appellant’s status as a government servant, absence of apprehension of absconding/tampering, and the State’s failure to verify potentially “best evidence” (CCTV), the Court found him entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions referenced as Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (as stated in the order).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The order does not cite any judicial precedents by name. The reasoning proceeds primarily on statutory framing (SC/ST Act and anticipatory bail principles) and on case-specific procedural facts—particularly the State’s failure to comply with directions to verify documents and CCTV footage.

Even without explicit citations, the structure of the decision reflects familiar bail jurisprudence themes: the Court assesses (i) the nature and specificity of allegations, (ii) the likelihood of absconding or tampering, (iii) the availability of objective evidence, and (iv) investigative fairness and diligence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(A) Appellate route under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act

The appellant approached the High Court under Section 14-A(2), which provides an appellate remedy against certain orders of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act, including bail-related orders. The Court treated the matter as a challenge to rejection of pre-arrest bail by the Special Judge.

(B) Court’s finding on SC/ST Act “non-attraction” due to appellant’s Scheduled Tribe status

A pivotal step in the reasoning is the Court’s observation that the appellant’s caste certificate shows he belongs to Scheduled Tribe “Goud”, and therefore the SC/ST Act provisions “does not attract” to him.

Read as a legal proposition within this order, the Court treats the appellant’s ST status as materially undermining the invocation of SC/ST Act offences against him. This finding functions as an enabling premise for considering pre-arrest bail without the heightened statutory concerns typically associated with SC/ST Act allegations.

Importantly, the Court also noted that the State failed to verify even the caste certificate despite being directed to do so, which further strengthened the appellant’s position at the interim (bail) stage.

(C) Evidentiary focus: CCTV as “best evidence” for the limited role alleged

The Court characterised the allegation against the appellant as narrow: he allegedly drove the car at the time of taking the prosecutrix. The appellant asserted that CCTV footage at relevant points could establish whether he was the driver, and that he had made a representation on 31.03.2026 requesting such verification.

The Court was influenced by the fact that it had itself directed verification on 08.05.2026 and granted time again on 15.05.2026, yet the State produced no verification report. The Court treated this failure as significant, especially because CCTV, if available, would be a comparatively objective check against a disputed allegation of presence/role.

(D) Conventional bail factors

The Court relied on standard anticipatory bail considerations:

  • Service status: the appellant is a government servant.
  • Risk assessment: no apprehension of absconding or tampering was found.
  • Merits not decided: bail granted “without commenting on the merits”.

3.3 Impact

The order has three practical implications for future bail litigation under the SC/ST Act in Madhya Pradesh:

  1. Accused’s community status as a bail-relevant threshold issue: The Court’s approach suggests that where the accused demonstrates Scheduled Tribe status (supported by documentation), the Court may treat SC/ST Act invocation against that accused as prima facie doubtful, influencing the bail outcome. This places a premium on early production and verification of caste documentation at the bail stage.
  2. Judicial intolerance for non-compliance with verification directions: The State’s failure to verify CCTV/documents despite repeated opportunities was treated as a factor supporting bail. This signals that investigative inertia—especially regarding objective evidence—can materially affect liberty decisions.
  3. Role-specific assessment in multi-accused sexual offence narratives: Even where the overall allegations are grave, the Court emphasised the individual role attributed to the appellant (driver) and insisted on scrutiny of corroborative sources (CCTV) for that specific role.

That said, the order is expressly confined to bail and does not determine guilt or finally rule on applicability of charges; its strongest influence will be at the stage of anticipatory bail and procedural compliance in investigation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Anticipatory bail
A pre-arrest protection granted by a court directing that if a person is arrested, they shall be released on bail. It is meant to protect against unnecessary arrest while ensuring cooperation with investigation.
Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act (appeal)
A statutory right to appeal certain orders (including bail-related orders) passed by Special Courts constituted under the SC/ST Act. Here, it enabled High Court review of the Special Judge’s refusal of anticipatory bail.
“Non-attraction” of SC/ST Act
A shorthand used in the order to indicate that, in the Court’s view, the SC/ST Act provisions invoked in the FIR were not applicable to the appellant on the presented material (notably, his Scheduled Tribe status). This was a prima facie assessment for bail purposes.
CCTV as “best evidence”
In disputes about presence or role (e.g., who drove a vehicle), contemporaneous video footage can be more objective than contested oral assertions. The Court treated the State’s failure to check such evidence as a serious deficiency at the bail stage.
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions (as referenced by the Court)
Standard conditions typically include cooperating with investigation, not influencing witnesses, and complying with attendance requirements. The order makes bail subject to such conditions.

5. Conclusion

The High Court’s order in Mulam Singh Gond v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh is significant for its bail-stage articulation that where the accused is shown (prima facie) to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe, the SC/ST Act provisions invoked may be treated as not attracted against that accused, thereby easing the path to anticipatory bail.

Equally important is the Court’s strong reliance on procedural fairness: the State’s failure to comply with directions to verify caste documentation and examine CCTV footage—described as potentially the “best evidence” on the limited role alleged—was a decisive factor supporting pre-arrest liberty. The broader takeaway is that in SC/ST Act-linked prosecutions, courts may closely scrutinize (i) applicability prerequisites, (ii) accused-specific role attribution, and (iii) investigative diligence when deciding anticipatory bail.