ORDER :

1. State counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a question regarding maintainability of the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. The offences have been registered against the applicants in all three cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'the Act, 2012') and also under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act, 1989').

3. As regards the Act, 2012, the provision under Criminal Procedure Code are applicable, therefore, application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. can be filed before High Court, however, different procedure has been provided under Section 14-A of the Act, 1989, which is as follows :-

Section 14-A. Appeals.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days.

(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.]

4. The question raised by the State Counsel is this, that provision under Section 14-A of the Act, 1989 has overriding effect according to Section 20 of the same Act, which says that save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Therefore, the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicants in the case of commission of offences under the provisions of the Act, 2012 along with the provisions under the Act, 1989 is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.3053 of 2020, submits that the Act, 2012 and the Act, 1989 both are special laws. The Act, 1989 caters to the need of class of citizens, who are member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The applicability of the Act, 2012 is more generalized because in this Act, there is no discrimination made of the victim belonging to any class. The offence i.e. committed is basically penalized under the provisions of the Act, 2012 and it may be by chance that victim in such case, may belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, then the offence under the Act, 1989 shall also be registered against the accused persons. Therefore, the Act, 2012, which is subsequent enactment comes into play first and the Act, 1989 follows in suitable cases.

6. It is submitted that although there is provision under Section 20 of the Act, 1989 that Act shall have overriding effect on other laws and enactments, but the same is meant for the existing enactments. The provision of the Act, 1989 came into force in the year 1989, whereas, the Act, 2012 came into force in the year 2012. Section 42 (A) of the Act, 2012 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any oth