New Delhi, April 24, 2013:
A person facing charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be granted anticipatory bail until it was proved that no case was made out against him and the allegations were false, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench of justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya explained the legal position while setting aside an order of anticipatory bail granted to Baljinder Singh by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The court said a case for anticipatory bail could arise for a person, accused of an offence under the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe Act, only if charges under the special law were quashed.
The bench referred to its earlier verdict in the “Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr Vs state of Maharashtra and Ors” in 2012, stating that Section 18 of the Act created “a specific bar to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person against whom any offence is registered under the provisions of the Act and, therefore no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail unless it, prima facie, finds that an offence under the Act is not made out.”
“We find that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984, provides that nothing in Section 438 (provisions relating to anticipatory bail) of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act,” the bench said.
Without going into the merit of the case, the court overturned the high court order passed on January 31, 2012, allowing the relief of anticipatory bail.
The case against Singh was lodged at the Model Town police station in Panipat by a woman on July 30, 2010, for making caste abuses, besides various offences including criminal intimidation and outraging modesty of the woman.
— in New Delhi.A person facing charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be granted anticipatory bail until it was proved that no case was made out against him and the allegations were false, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench of justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya explained the legal position while setting aside an order of anticipatory bail granted to Baljinder Singh by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The court said a case for anticipatory bail could arise for a person, accused of an offence under the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe Act, only if charges under the special law were quashed.
The bench referred to its earlier verdict in the “Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr Vs state of Maharashtra and Ors” in 2012, stating that Section 18 of the Act created “a specific bar to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person against whom any offence is registered under the provisions of the Act and, therefore no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail unless it, prima facie, finds that an offence under the Act is not made out.”
“We find that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984, provides that nothing in Section 438 (provisions relating to anticipatory bail) of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act,” the bench said.
Without going into the merit of the case, the court overturned the high court order passed on January 31, 2012, allowing the relief of anticipatory bail.
The case against Singh was lodged at the Model Town police station in Panipat by a woman on July 30, 2010, for making caste abuses, besides various offences including criminal intimidation and outraging modesty of the woman.
No comments:
Post a Comment