S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

( 2 ) APPREHENDING arrest in Cr. No. 101/2001 (wrongly shown as 360/2001 in the petition) of Hangal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 323, 430, 447, 504, 506 read with S. 149, I. P. C. as well as under S. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioners have approached this Court in the present petition inter alia contending that the petitioners are innocent and they have been arraigned as accused with vengeance due to previous enmity. It is also contended that, though the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 7-9-2001, filing of the complaint almost after 11 days of the incident especially involving the petitioners with the offence under the Act is to wreak vengeance and is done with much deliberation and as such it is prayed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail on the terms deemed fit by the Court.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/state submitted that the petition under S. 439, Cr. P. C. itself is barred in view of S. 18 of the Act and as such the petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable one. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that right of liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and as such there cannot be any restriction placed even by any enactment. It is contended that keeping in view possibilities of false and vexatious complaint being launched against innocent persons, the provisions of Ss. 438 and 439 have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereunder the Courts can go into the question of prima facie existence of a case of commission of offence and necessity of keeping a person in custody immediately after his arrest especially keeping in view the fact that trial takes lot of time and being lengthy procedure. Hence, it is contended that if such right to approach the Courts seeking bail is denied even if the prosecution based on false and malicious grounds has been launched, it would be causing injustice to innocent persons like the present petitioners. It is contended that when the High Courts or the Apex Court have powers and jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings at the very inceptional stage irrespective of nature of offence on the grounds of absence of prima facie material, the jurisdiction to enlarge a person even on anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed by S. 18 of the Act.

( 4 ) ON considering the rival contentions, at the outset it would be necessary to consider the scope and applicability of S. 18 of the Act especially when the petitioners have directly approached this Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C. and to find out whether there is absolute bar or not for invoking the provisions under S. 438, Cr. P. C. as per S. 18 of the Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 18 of the Act reads as follows : "nothing in S. 438 of the 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. "

( 6 ) THUS by bare reading of S. 18 it appears that the provisions of S. 438, Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked by any person if he is accused of the offence punishable under the Act.

( 7 ) THE constitutional validity of the Act is upheld by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P. v. Ramkishna, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1198 : (1995 Cri LJ 2076 ). In this pronouncement so far as aims and objects of the Act, S. 18 of the Act and S. 438, Cr. P. C. are concerned, it is observed thus"despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document