Gujarat HC Grants Bail in Atrocity Act Case, Holds Six Prior Cases No Bar to Relief

The Gujarat High Court overturned a district court's bail refusal, ruling that unproved antecedents and caste-insult allegations via video did not justify continued detention under the SC/ST Atrocity Act.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad granted regular bail on 6 August 2026 to Ravikumar Bharatbhai Joshi, who had been in custody since 23 December 2025 in connection with an FIR registered at Dhari Police Station, District Amreli. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1646 of 2026 and set aside the 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhari's order of 7 March 2026 that had rejected bail primarily because the appellant carried six prior cases. The court held that antecedents not resulting in any conviction could not, by themselves, defeat the presumption of innocence or sustain pre-trial detention.

The FIR and Allegations Against the Appellant

The FIR — C.R. No. 11193018250541 of 2025 — was registered under Sections 352 and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(1)(U) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocity Act).

The core allegation was that Joshi uploaded a video portraying the complainant as a bootlegger. Three prohibition cases had been registered against the complainant, though no court had convicted him. Beyond the video, the allegation extended to an incident at a marriage function where Joshi allegedly expressed displeasure that a person belonging to the SC/ST community had been invited to a Rajgor Brahmin community wedding, and made remarks to that effect.

The court observed that except for these two acts — the video upload and the remark at the marriage function — no further role or allegation was attributed to the appellant.

Why the District Court Refused Bail

The 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhari rejected the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on the ground that the appellant had six antecedents. No other substantive reason was recorded in the impugned order of 7 March 2026.

The Section 18 Bar and the Supreme Court's Position

A critical question in Atrocity Act bail matters is whether Section 18 of that Act — which excludes the application of bail provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure to persons accused of offences under the Act — operates as an absolute bar. Justice Suthar referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, and held that the bar under Section 18 would not be applicable on the facts of this case. The order does not elaborate on the precise factual trigger for that exclusion, but the reference to the Supreme Court's position in Hitesh Verma formed the basis for the High Court proceeding to exercise its discretion on bail.

How the Court Reasoned on Bail

Justice Suthar reaffirmed the well-settled factors a court must weigh when considering a bail application: whether there is prima facie ground to believe the accused committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; the severity of punishment on conviction; the risk of the accused absconding; the character and standing of the accused; the likelihood of the offence being repeated; the possibility of witnesses being influenced; and the danger of justice being thwarted.

Against these factors, the court made two specific findings. First, the commencement and conclusion of trial would take considerable time, making continued incarceration effectively a form of pre-trial conviction. Second, the appellant's six prior cases had not resulted in any conviction by any competent court, and the presumption of innocence continued to govern his position. The court stated plainly that “merely having past antecedents is not a ground to refuse the bail.”

The court also drew on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, applying the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The High Court ordered Joshi's release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions attached to the bail are detailed:

• He shall not take undue advantage of or misuse the liberty granted.
• He shall not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution.
• He shall surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within one week.
• He shall not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court.
• He shall mark his presence at the concerned police station once a month for six months, between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
• He shall furnish his present residential address to the Investigating Officer and the court at the time of executing the bond, and shall not change residence without prior permission of the trial court.
• He shall not seek unnecessary adjournments to prolong the trial.
• If found involved in any illegal activities in future, the trial court shall be free to issue a warrant and cancel the bail.

The court further clarified that the authorities shall release Joshi only if he is not required in connection with any other offence. In the event of any breach of conditions, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue a warrant or take appropriate action. The bail bond is to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. The concerned court retains the freedom to delete, modify, or relax any condition in accordance with law.

Outcome

Criminal Appeal No. 1646 of 2026 was allowed. The order dated 7 March 2026 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhari, District Amreli in Criminal Misc. Application No. 48 of 2025 was quashed and set aside. Ravikumar Bharatbhai Joshi was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to the conditions set out above. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by any prima facie observations made in the bail order when proceeding with the trial. Direct service was permitted.