AB/1034/2026 of SMTI PLABITA GOGOI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 23 August 2026

::O R D E R::

24.08.2026

Heard Mr. U. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Invoking the provisions of section 482 B.N.S.S., the petitioner, namely, Smti. Plabita Gogoi is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 23/2026 u/s 108/351(2)/352(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(z) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after SC-ST Act).

3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 27.01.2026 lodged by Raj Kishore Doley, husband of the deceased Juri Doley, against the present petitioner. It is alleged that the deceased, who is the informant's wife, was staying with his son and daughter-in-law/accused petitioner in Guwahati and that the accused petitioner has subjected the victim and the informant's son to mental harassment, physical and emotional abuse. It is alleged that the accused repeatedly forced the informant's wife out of the house, denied her proper care and medication, and used caste-based slurs knowing that she belonged to the Missing Community. It is alleged that due to the persistent harassment and mental torture, his wife took her own life.

4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the penal provisions pertaining to the SC-ST Act has also been given, but the ingredients thereof are not made out and therefore, anticipatory bail would be maintainable. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel has referred to the leading case of Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 625: 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 688.

5. The case diary, as called for, has been received.

6. Mr. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that it remains to be seen as to whether the ingredients of the SC-ST Act are attracted, keeping in mind the principles laid down in Shajan Skaria (supra). He also submits that though a suicide note of the deceased is available in the case diary, but the narration in the same does not refer to any caste or tribe-based slurs on the part of the accused petitioner.

7. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions.

8. Section 18 of the SC-ST Act excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (as it existed then), pertaining to anticipatory bail. Section 18A(2), states that the provisions of anticipatory bail shall not apply to a case under the Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court. In the case of Shajan Skaria (supra), one of the questions posed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is as to whether Section 18 imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail in cases under the SC-ST Act. Answering that question, Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 46 held that the bar under Section 18 of the Act would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist, pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act. It was further held in Para 51 that an accusation – which does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence on a prima facie reading cannot be said to be sufficient to bring into operation the bar envisaged by Section 18 of the Act. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court that if the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC-ST Act, then it can be said that the prima facie case under the Act is not there and in that situation, the bar of Section 18 prohibiting anticipatory bail would not apply.

9. Coming back to the facts of this case, I find that on 20.04.2025, the accused petitioner had lodged an elaborate complaint before the police alleging as to how she was cheated and defrauded by the son of the deceased who was her husband. She alleged that she was forced into giving signatures on blank papers and later she found that loans had been taken from them. She also alleged that such activities of her husband landed her in serious difficulties and caused immense mental distress.

10. As already stated, after the unfortunate demise of her mother-in- law, the present FIR dated 27.01.2026 was filed against her. The provisions of the SC-ST Act under which the case has been registered against the petitioner are Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z).

11. Section 3(1)(r) defines the offence of intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of the SC or ST with intent to humiliate and such act is done in any place within public view. Section 3(1)(s) penalises the offence of abusing a member of SC or ST by caste name in any place within public view. Section 3(1)(z) criminalises the act of forcing a member of SC or ST to leave his house, village or other place of residence.

12. It is clear that the offences under 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) have to be committed in a public place within public view. As per the allegations in the instant case, the supposed slurs made by the petitioner on the Tribe status of the deceased have apparently happened as part of their relationship difficulties in the household.

13. It is also revealed from the materials that the petitioner and her husband were having a lot of difficulties in their relationship and the deceased was distressed over the same also. The deceased is stated to have been staying with her son and daughter-in-law in Guwahati and there are allegations of the petitioner trying to push her out. But it does not appear that any such alleged act of trying to push out her mother-in-law was only based on her Tribal identity.

14. In any case, the ingredients of section 3(1)(z) focuses on a different area in my considered view and would be applicable to a situation where a member of the SC or ST is forced to leave his house or village or other place of residence, mainly on the ground of caste discrimination.

15. In my considered opinion, the necessary ingredients of section 3(1)

(r) /3(1)(s)/3(1)(z) do not apply in the instant case. Therefore, the bar of section 18 would not be applicable and it would be permissible to entertain the instant anticipatory bail application despite the case being registered inter alia under the provisions of SC-ST Act as well.

16. As already mentioned, the accused petitioner herself has ventilated elaborate grievances against the son of the deceased and informant. The alleged acts attributed to her husband had led to difficulties in their relationship which also affected her mother-in-law. As fairly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the suicide note does not apparently reveal any caste slurs.

17. I have seen the progress of the investigation which has reasonably progressed. From the materials, it appears prima facie that the accused petitioner has also been a victim of certain circumstances occurring from the side of the informant's family.

18. Upon considering the entire matter, this Court is of the view that it would be just and fair to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

19. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioner, he shall be released on bail in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 23/2026 u/s 108/351(2)/352(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(z) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

20. The direction for bail is further subject to the condition(s) that the accused-petitioner:

(a) she shall cooperate with the investigation; (b) she shall appear before the IO for examination; and

(c) she shall not hamper or tamper with evidence and shall not commit any harm, harassment, or intimidation towards the informant and his family members.

21. Violation or breach of condition(s) shall entail cancellation of the bail.

22. The anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of.

23. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant