Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.118 (1), 115(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 324(4), 76, 351(3), 352 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 18 – Allegation that the accused persons beat the complainant with iron rod and threatened to burn the house – The word “Mangatyano” was used with a clear intention to humiliate the complainant because he belonged to the said Scheduled Caste community – The mother and aunt of the appellant-complainant were also meted out similar treatment – FIR registered – Respondentaccused sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the trial Court – However, the High Court granted anticipatory bail – Correctness:
Held: 1. The High Court in proceeding to evaluate the testimony of witnesses and to opine on that basis that there were certain discrepancies, no offence was made out, committed a manifest error – The anticipatory bail granted by overlooking of and disregarding the bar of s.18 of the 1989 Act was a clear illegality and jurisdictional error committed by the High Court – The order of the High Court could not be sustained in the eye of law. [Para 9]
2. The provision of s.18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of s.438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act – The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off – The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider – Where on the face of it the offence u/s.3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused u/s.438 of the Code – In the instant case, the said abusive utterances and conduct by the accused, the caste nexus was established – The complainant was humiliated with casteist and abusive approach for the reason that he did not vote in favour of particular candidate one accused no.8 in the Assembly Election as desired by the respondent-accused – In the present case, the incident took place outside the house of the appellant which could be viewed by anybody – It was indeed a place within public view – There is no gainsaying that in the facts of the case all ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute offences u/s.3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 as alleged in the FIR stood satisfied. [Paras 6, 6.1, 7.1, 8]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.