SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted bail to accused persons booked under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case involving allegations of caste-based abuse and intimidation arising from a dispute over land and a petrol pump in Bishnah, Jammu district.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while allowing the bail application on October 8, observed that the provisions of the SC/ST Act did not appear to be attracted, prima facie, to the allegations in the FIR, as the complainant’s husband, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, was not present when the alleged caste-based abuses were made. The court, however, left it to the investigating agency to determine whether the offence was actually made out.
The court directed the accused to furnish bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each, along with one surety, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. They have also been directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses, cooperate with the investigation and refrain from leaving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the investigating officer’s prior permission.
The High Court further directed that the investigation into the FIR may continue, but the charge sheet, if intended to be filed against the accused, cannot be presented before the competent court without its permission.
The bail order came in Bail Application No. 168/2026, filed alongside a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 0124/2016 registered at Bishnah police station under Sections 79, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as cited in the judgment, and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.
Allegations of caste-based abuse
According to the complaint, lodged with the police on July 13, 2026, the accused allegedly entered an open plot of land at Bishnah on July 9, along with three or four unidentified persons, and abused the complainant and her husband using obscene and caste-based language.
The complainant alleged that the accused threatened to dispossess them from the property and that one of them repeatedly used derogatory caste-related expressions and urged others to assault her. She also alleged that the accused made sexually offensive remarks intended to insult her modesty and threatened her, causing her to fear for her safety and that of her minor daughter.
The allegations remain contested. The accused denied wrongdoing and argued that the FIR was an attempt to use criminal proceedings to settle a long-standing civil dispute over the property and the petrol pump.
Court examines applicability of SC/ST Act
While considering the bail plea, Justice Dhar examined Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which address intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and abuse by caste name, in a place within public view.
The court noted that the complainant herself did not belong to a Scheduled Caste community, although her husband did. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunita Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it observed that caste is determined by birth and does not change through marriage.
The court then considered the allegations that caste-based abuses had also been directed at the complainant’s husband, who was not present at the spot. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it observed that the person allegedly insulted must be present for the relevant provisions to apply in the circumstances discussed in that judgment.
On this basis, the High Court formed a prima facie view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act might not be attracted. It clarified that the investigating agency would still have to examine the matter and determine whether the offence was made out.
The judge also observed that the offences alleged under the BNS, relating to insulting the modesty of a woman, criminal intimidation and intentional insult, were not of such gravity as to warrant rejection of bail on that ground alone.
Dispute over land and petrol pump
The case centres on a plot measuring 1,155 square metres at Village Chak Lala, Sheora, in Bishnah tehsil, where a petrol pump operated under the name M/s Gasolene Filling Station.
According to the accused, the complainant and her husband entered into an agreement to sell three kanals of land to one of the petitioners for Rs 2.5 crore on October 28, 2024. They claimed that Rs 1.70 crore had been paid at the time of the agreement, with the remaining amount payable upon registration of the sale deed and transfer of the petrol pump dealership.
The accused further claimed that the operation of the filling station was handed over to one of the petitioners on November 6, 2024, and that the dealership was subsequently transferred to Rupali Gupta, the wife of another petitioner, through an agreement with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) on September 10, 2025. They alleged that the complainant later demanded an additional Rs 1.5 crore and interfered with the operation of the filling station.
The complainant disputed this account, alleging that the agreed consideration had not been paid in full. She claimed that the original proposal involved a transaction worth Rs 7 crore and that only Rs 81,93,150 had been transferred by one of the petitioners. She further alleged that her signatures and those of her husband had been forged on the agreement and challenged the transfer of the dealership to Rupali Gupta.
Both sides have approached civil courts over the disputed property and the operation of the petrol pump.
The High Court noted that the parties were involved in a serious civil dispute and that the possibility of the dispute having prompted the filing of the FIR could not be ruled out.
Complainant directed to file affidavit
The court also examined a dispute over a civil suit purportedly filed in the complainant’s name against some of the accused and HPCL. After examining the original court record, it directed the complainant to file an affidavit clarifying whether she had instituted the suit and signed the pleadings and vakalatnama.
The affidavit is to be filed before the next date of hearing. The High Court listed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR for November 16, 2026, while disposing of the bail application.
The order does not quash the FIR or terminate the investigation. The proceedings are to continue subject to the court’s directions.
