Case Title:
Renoj R.S. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr
Date:
October 26, 2022
Bench:
Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Parties:
Petitioner- Renoj RS
Respondent- State of Kerala
SUBJECT
By an order dated 02.09.2022, this Court had granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Following a legal conflict between the two statutes, it was decided to consider the matter in detail, despite bail being granted to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had slapped and scolded the complainant using filthy language. Since the offence was registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the Court Registry held the view that an appeal alone under Section 14A of the said Act was maintainable. There came a legal conflict as to which was the statute under which the petitioner is entitled to maintain an application for bail. If it was under Section 439 of CrPC then the remedy could be sought before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. If the provisions of the SC/ST Act prevail, then the application was to be filed before the Special Court. It was held that the accused was entitled to follow procedures under the POCSO Act for bail. Since Section 31 of the POCSO Act, made the provisions of CrPC applicable, the petitioner was justified in approaching this Court under Section 439 of CrPC. Thus the bail was granted to the petitioner.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 439 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973-This Section is regarding special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail procedures.
- Section 14A, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- This Section deals with the concerned court and time period for bail application regarding any offence that comes under this Act.
- Section 31, POCSO Act 2012 – This Section deals with the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before a Special Court. It states that the Special Court shall be deemed to be a court of Sessions and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.
OVERVIEW
- It was alleged that the accused slapped and scolded the fifteen year old complainant using filthy language. Provisions of the SC/ST Act were also included as the complainant was a member of a Scheduled Caste.
- The petitioner was arrested and was kept under custody until bail was granted.
- Registry of this Court raised the objection that in view of the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act, an appeal is maintainable only under Section 14A. Considering the urgency of the issue since the petitioner was under detention, the Court directed the Registry to number the case. Thus bail was granted to the petitioner, reserving the legal question for later.
- Referring to Basheer v. Rajani (2022 (5) KLT 352) the Court held that when an offence under the SC/ST Act is alleged, a bail application including that for anticipatory bail, can only be filed before the Special Court designated under the statute. It was also held that under Section 14A of this Act, the jurisdiction exercised by this Court in such matters were only appellate in nature.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to move a bail application under Section 439 of CrPC?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the objection raised by the Registry on the maintainability of this bail application was without any merit and also pointed out that the said objection would lead to the petitioner being detained until 02-09-2022.
- It was also submitted that provisions of POCSO Act enabled an accused to seek anticipatory bail or bail by resorting to the provisions of the CrPC. There were no restrictions as to this.
- Arguments were also raised about the different classes of persons dealt with by the two statutes, and also on the nature of power derived under section 439 Cr.P.C, including the rights of the accused.
- The principle which stated that when two conflicting statutes contain non-obstante clauses, the later statute will prevail was put forward. As SC/ST Act was enacted before the POCSO Act, jurisdiction of this Court under Section439 of CrPC could be invoked. Thus the bail application ought to be granted.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It was fairly submitted by the learner counsel for the complainant that the matter requires clarification to avoid confusion and recurrence in the future.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court pointed out that if the provisions of the POCSO Act prevailed, then the petitioner could rightly make an application for bail under Section439 of CrPC, the remedy of which could be sought before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. However, if the provisions of the SC/ST Act prevailed, then the application had to be filed before the Special Court and only an appeal will lie to the High Court under section 14A of the SC/ST Act. Thus, there was a conflict in the application of the provisions of the two statutes.
- The SC/ST Act was enacted on 30.01.1990, while the POCSO Act was enacted on 19.06.2012. Both statutes contain provisions regarding the overriding effect each of them holds over any other law to the extent of the inconsistency.
- Section 31 of the POCSO Act provides for the application of CrPC, which includes the provision for bail.
- Regarding the nature of jurisdiction held by the High Court, in matters relating to bail for offences under the SC/ST Act is appellate, while under the POCSO Act, when read with Cr.P.C it is concurrent and original.
- The Court held that despite the SC/ST Act being amended in 2015 and 2018, the overriding effect of POCSO Act, still stands and has not been interfered with by the Parliament. Thus, it is evident that the legislature intended to give supremacy to the POCSO Act, even over the SC/ST Act, in the event of any inconsistency.
- When a conflict between two statutes arises, the first task was to identify the special statute. If both are special statutes, the latter of the two statutes prevails.
- Thus according to Section 42A of POCSO Act, it was clear that the provisions of the POCSO Act will prevail over all other laws in the event of any inconsistency.
- As Section 31 of the POCSO Act made the provisions of CrPC applicable, it was held that the petitioner was perfectly justified in approaching this Court.
- The bail granted to the petitioner on02.09.2022 was made absolute and this bail application was allowed.
CONCLUSION
Thus it was held that whenever offences under POCSO and SC/ST Act are alleged the accused is entitled to move a bail application under Section 31 of POCSO Act. Section 42A of POCSO Act, it was clear that the provisions of the POCSO Act will prevail over all other laws in the event of any inconsistency. This bail application was to be considered passed and bail was granted to the petitioner.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
