Bail:
Anticipatory bail – Sought in a case wherein offence u/s. 3(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was alleged – Initially rejected by District Judge – Later High Court registry refused to number and list the application before the Court and dismissed the application on the ground that offence being under SC/ST Act, the bail application was not maintainable – On appeal, held: The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative – The objections taken by the Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard – Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates at application of judicial mind – The determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering – The High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court – The power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry – The Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate Bench.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 677 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 242 –
followed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.