Kailash VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

KRISHAN PAHAL
Kailash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
In Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.No.9396/2022
For the Applicant:Akash Tomar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: G.A.
In Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.No.9378/2022
For the Applicant:Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: G.A.
In Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.No.9363/2022
For the Applicant:Sushil Shukla and Aditya Prakash Singh, Advocates
For the Opp. Party: G.A.

JUDGMENT

Krishan Pahal, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the material available on record.

2. The applicants in the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications are alleged to have committed offences punishable under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘SC/ST Act’).

3. All the three anticipatory bail applications have been dismissed by the respective Special Judge SC/ST Act. The question of admissibility of jurisdiction of the aforesaid bails vide concurrent jurisdiction enshrined in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been agitated.

4. For the sake of verbiage, the contentions put by the learned counsels are concised below:—

(i) As per the law laid down in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India & Others, (2020) 4 SCC 727, notwithstanding the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable.

(ii) The application for anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act can be filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the High Court as well as Sessions Court.

5. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that as per the settled law of the Apex Court passed in case of Prat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document