The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted anticipatory bail to a member of the District Development Council (DDC) in a case involving the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court observed that whether a specific word like “Chinal” constitutes a caste-based slur is a disputed question of fact that can only be resolved during a full trial.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while presiding over the petition filed by Santosha Devi, held that the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail does not apply when the essential ingredients of the offence—specifically the intent to humiliate based on caste—are not prima facie established by the available evidence.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stemmed from an incident on January 8, 2026, during the inauguration of a road at Kastigarh. The complainant, a member of the ‘Megh’ community (a Scheduled Caste), alleged that the petitioner and her sons attacked him without provocation. The core of the allegation under the SC/ST Act was that the petitioner publicly insulted the complainant by using the term “Chinal.”
An FIR (No. 09 of 2026) was registered at Police Station Doda under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The petitioner moved the High Court after the trial court at Bhaderwah dismissed her bail application on January 21, 2026.
The Linguistic Dispute: Meaning of “Chinal”
Petitioner’s Contentions: Represented by M/s J.P. Gandhi and Nipun Gandhi, the petitioner argued that “Chinal” is not a caste-related term. They presented two alternative interpretations:
- Internet/General usage: It is a gender-specific word referring to women, making it inapplicable to the male complainant.
- Local/Religious usage: In Doda district, the word is derived from “China” (religious symbols like the Trishul). A “Chinal” is a person who takes care of these symbols and is often worshipped before religious activities.
Respondents’ Contentions: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG, representing the UT of J&K, argued that the term is locally understood as an abusive caste-based slur specifically linked to the “Megh” community. The state relied on statements from the local Lumbardar and Chowkidar to support this claim.
Court’s Analysis on the Word “Chinal”
Justice Sekhri noted that a court considering a bail plea cannot embark upon a “mini-trial” to resolve such factual disputes. Regarding the meaning of the word used, the Court observed:
“Therefore, whether word ‘chinal’, alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner against the complainant, is caste-based, gender-specific, or a religious symbol, can only be decided during a full-dressed trial. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction to consider a bail plea.”
The Court further clarified that even if a term is not listed in the Scheduled Castes Order, it could still constitute an offence if it is used as a slur linked to a recognized community with the intent to humiliate. However, the Court emphasized that for the statutory bar under Section 18 to apply, the intent must be clearly “targeted at the victim for the reason that he belongs to a Scheduled caste.”
Evidence and Decision
Upon reviewing the electronic evidence, including video recordings of the incident and a subsequent press conference, the Court found that the alleged caste-based abuse was not clearly audible or admitted.
“What can be seen or heard in the recording is only commotion. Nothing is clearly audible. Similarly, in video recording of the press conference… there is no assertion or admission on the part of the petitioner that she, at any point of time, abused the complainant by his caste name.”
Concluding that the prima facie ingredients of the SC/ST Act were missing, the Court allowed the petition. Santosha Devi was directed to be released on a surety bond of ₹25,000 in the event of arrest, subject to standard conditions including cooperation with the investigation.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Santosha Devi vs. UT of J&K & Ors.
- Case No: CRM(M) No. 63/2026
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Sekhri
- Date: April 2, 2026
