Caste Abuse Over Phone Not Atrocity Under SC/ST Act, Says Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that allegations of caste-based abuse made over a telephone call, and not in public view, do not prima facie attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, while disposing of an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Nurul Aras.

The plea was placed before a single judge bench of Justice Jay Sengupta. The petitioner had approached the high court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest protection in connection with an FIR that invoked Sections 31(r) and 31(s) of the SC/ST Act along with other penal provisions.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bar on granting anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act would not apply in the present case, as the basic ingredients of the offence were not satisfied. It was argued that the FIR itself alleged that the abusive remarks were made over a telephone call. Since the statute requires that such caste-based insults or intimidation must occur in public view, the petitioner contended that no prima facie offence under the special enactment was made out.

The petitioner also pointed out that apart from the SC/ST Act provisions, the remaining sections invoked in the FIR were bailable offences. On this basis, it was argued that continued apprehension of arrest was unwarranted and that the petitioner was entitled to protection from coercive action.

Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the State submitted that the allegations were serious in nature and relied on the case diary as well as statements recorded during the course of investigation. The prosecution urged the court not to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, contending that custodial interrogation may be necessary.

After hearing both sides, court examined the nature of the allegations as reflected in the FIR. Justice Sengupta noted that the alleged abusive remarks were stated to have been made over the telephone and not in public view. In view of this factual position, court held that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie attracted.

Court described the matter as a “peculiar case,” taking note of the fact that the other allegations levelled against the petitioner were bailable in nature. Balancing the competing considerations, court refrained from granting anticipatory bail but extended limited protection to the petitioner.

The High Court disposed of the application by granting the petitioner liberty to surrender before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail within a period of four weeks. It directed that if such an application for bail is made, the same shall be considered by the jurisdictional court in accordance with law.

Importantly, court also directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested during this four-week period, effectively granting interim protection from arrest to enable him to approach the trial court for appropriate relief.

Case Title: Nurul Aras vs. State of West Bengal and Others

Order Date: December 22, 2025

Bench: Justice Jay Sengupta