CAUSE TITLE:
Kailash Vs. State Of UP And Other Connected Appeals
DATE OF ORDER:
30.9.2022
JUDGE:
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Sunil Dutt Sharma
Respondent: State Of U.P And Another
Subject
The Allahabad High Court upheld the decision passed by the special judge SC/ST act by not granting the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under s. 438 of C.R.P.C and held that the crime committed under the SC/ST act are appealable under Section 14A of the 1989 Act.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
-
Section 14A of the SC/ST Act
The order, judgement, sentence, from any special court or exclusive special court shall be appealed in front of the high court.
-
Sections 18 of the SC/ST Act
Nothing from the s. 438 shall be applicable for people accused under this act.
-
Section 438 of CrPC
When anaccused person is arrested under any non-bailable offence he can apply to the high court or the session court for an anticipatory bail.
-
Section 482 of CrPC
This section establishes the power of the high court to make orders to prevent abuse of process by any other court and to serve justice.
-
Section 437 of CrPC
It gives the right to a trial court or a magistrate in front of whom anoffender is presented it is on their discretion to grant or refuse bail.
-
Section 21(4) of NIA Act
If the session court grants or refuses bail the appeal shall be given to the high court against that order.
BRIEF FACTS
- The three accused namely 1. Kailash 2. gyanti devi 3. Sunil dutt filed for an anticipatory bail in the high court after the dismissal of the bail plea from the special court. The three have allegedly committed offences under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 their previous appeal for anticipatory bail had been dismissed by the special judge SC/ST act the argument from the appellants were for the validity for the dismissal on the grounds of S.438 C.R.P.C.
- The appellants gave the reference for the prathvi raj vs. union of India and said that in that case the apex court ruled that if there is no prima facie case for the application of cases filed under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 then the appellants can file an anticipatory bail and they cannot be stopped under s.18 and 18a of the act. The supreme court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra &Anr. laid down the dilution of the section 18 of the schedule cast act. The appellants filed for relief through s.438 of the C.R.P.C which stated that “the high court or the session court can through its discretion give anticipatory bail to the appellants in non-bailable offence”.
- The appellants further argued that in the ruling given by the apex court in Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and Others that if there is enough proof that the accused will not abscond the summons of the court, threaten the victim, influence the victim the investigating officer should uphold the value of personal liberty provided by our constitution. And the court also said that “merely if an arrest can be done because it is permissible under the law it doesn’t mandate the arrest”
- The learned high court of Allahabad after hearing all these arguments and considering the facts the court dismissed the appeal.
- The court also said that another appeal for the anticipatory bail can be applied under s.14a of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
- The court held that in a case where the prima facie isn’t there the accused should apply for bail under s.14a of the SC/ST act rather than s.438 of C.R.P.C.
JUDGEMENT
- The court observed that the constitution has formed special courts/exclusive courts for the SC/ST cases, these are special courts primarily formed to feal with such cases, the court also observed that anticipatory bail for crimes committed under the SC/ST act the court can only approve the anticipatory bail if the allegations do not prima facie make out the case, even after the implementation of S.18(a) the court has the same stand.
- According to S. 2(d) 2(bd) and S.14 it states that the offences are to be exclusively tried at the special courts which are formed. The right given to the victim and witness in the SC/ST act is on a higher pedestal compared to that which is provided under C.R.P.C. the further reading of this act clearly indicates that there is exclusivity given to the special court over the normal court. The court mentioned that the appellant has the right to file for an anticipatory bail under S.14(a) of the SC/ST act not the S.438 of the C.R.P.C, hence the court dismissed the plea.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
