The Calcutta High Court recently observed that caste-based abusive remarks made over a telephone call do not prima facie attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as such actions fail to satisfy the "public view" requirement mandated by the statute.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jay Sengupta was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by one Nurul Aras, who was facing charges under Sections 31(r) and 31(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court clarified that for an offence to be registered under these specific sections, the alleged insult or intimidation must take place in a location accessible to or visible by the public.
The petitioner, Nurul Aras, moved the High Court seeking pre-arrest protection (anticipatory bail) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The First Information Report (FIR) against him alleged that he had used caste-based slurs and abusive language against the complainant.
The crux of the prosecution's case was that these abuses were hurled during a telephonic conversation. Under the SC/ST Act, Section 31(r) [formerly 3(1)(r)] punishes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view."
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the bar on granting anticipatory bail, as mentioned in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, would not apply in this instance. They contended that since the FIR itself stated the abuses occurred over the phone, the basic "ingredient" of the offence—publicity—was missing.
"If the basic ingredients of the offence are not satisfied, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail does not trigger. A private phone call between two individuals cannot be categorized as an act committed in public view," the petitioner's counsel submitted. It was further pointed out that all other sections invoked in the FIR were bailable offences.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail prayer, pointing toward the case diary and the statements of witnesses. The prosecution argued that the nature of the allegations was serious and that the petitioner’s conduct warranted custodial interrogation.
After reviewing the case diary and the FIR, Justice Jay Sengupta noted that the alleged abuses were indeed hurled over the telephone. The Court referred to the settled legal position that "public view" implies the presence of independent public witnesses or the occurrence of the act in a public space where members of the public could witness it.
The Bench observed:
"Considering the fact that the alleged abuses were hurled over the telephone and not in public view, the provisions of the special Act would not be prima facie attracted..."
The Court described the situation as a "peculiar case" because, once the SC/ST Act provisions were removed from the prima facie consideration, the remaining charges against the petitioner were bailable.
While the Court technically disposed of the anticipatory bail application without granting it in the traditional sense, it provided significant relief to the petitioner to ensure he was not arrested for bailable offences.
The Court granted the petitioner liberty to surrender before the jurisdictional trial court within four weeks and apply for regular bail. Crucially, the Bench directed:
- The petitioner shall not be arrested for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
- If the petitioner applies for regular bail within this period, the jurisdictional court must consider the application in accordance with the law.
This ruling reinforces a long-standing judicial trend across various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. The courts have consistently held that the SC/ST Act is a stringent piece of legislation designed to protect marginalized communities, but its special provisions—such as the restriction on anticipatory bail—can only be applied when the specific technical requirements of the Act are met.
In this case, the Calcutta High Court has reiterated that privacy in communication (like a one-on-one phone call) acts as a boundary for the "public view" clause, ensuring that the special Act is not misapplied in cases where the legal threshold is not reached.
Case Title: Nurul Aras vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Case Number: C.R.M.(A) 4050 of 2025
Bench: Justice Jay Sengupta
Order Date: December 22, 2025