IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1719 of 2023
(12.4.2023)
Mantu Paswan
@ Muntun Paswan ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. ... Respondents
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 14 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Earlier prayers for bail of appellant were rejected – While rejecting prayer for bail, this Court directed Trial Court to conclude trial within a period of six months, but till date trial has not been concluded and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial due to fact that Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is lying vacant and In-charge court has no power to proceed with trial and trial has not been concluded – As trial is at verge of conclusion, Court not inclined to grant bail to appellant – Prayer for bail of appellant again rejected – However, appellant given liberty to move before Trial Court if trial is not concluded within a period of six months – Trial Court directed to consider prayer for bail of appellant on its own merit – Matter to be placed before Chief Justice on administrative side for consideration regarding filling up vacant post of Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7)
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this is the 3rd attempt of the appellant to seek bail from this Court. Earlier the prayers for bail of the appellant were rejected vide order dated 16.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1232 of 2021 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 22.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1415 of 2022 by this Court. While rejecting the prayer for bail, this Court directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months, but till date trial has not been concluded and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that prosecution evidence in this case has been closed before the learned trial court, but due to the fact that Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is lying vacant and the In-charge court has no power to proceed with the trial and hence, the trial has not been concluded.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made here-in-above as the trial is at the verge of conclusion, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is again rejected.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
5. However, the appellant is at liberty to move before the learned trial court if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months and the learned trial court is directed to consider the prayer for bail of the appellant on its own merit and without getting prejudiced by the order of this Court.
6. Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides for conclusion of trial within two months. If the Special Court under SC/ST (POA) Act is lying vacant, it is but natural that the trial could not be concluded within the stipulated period.
7. Under these circumstances, let the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side for consideration regarding filling up vacant post of Special Judge, the SC/ST (POA) Act, Vaishali at Hajipur.
Prolonged detention without trial and lack of supporting evidence can justify the granting of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the period of detention, the appellant's criminal history, and the likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case in a....
The court established that delays in filing FIRs and the status of investigations are critical factors in bail considerations under the SC/ST Act, allowing for a more nuanced approach to bail applica....
Court can grant bail considering the period of incarceration and valid reasons for the appellant's non-appearance in prior hearings.
An accused under the SC/ST (POA) Act must follow statutory procedures for bail and cannot directly apply to the High Court after prior denials by the Special Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.