SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Del) 312

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, ARUNA SURESH
R. K. SANGWAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr.Dharam Raj Ohlan, Advocate.
Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate and Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate and

JUDGMENT

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. While dealing with Bail Application No.1514/2007, a learned Single Judge of this Court has made a reference to a larger Bench on the question, whether the bar of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) operates as a complete bar to the maintainability of

petitions/applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

2. Section 18 of the Act read as under:- “18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.– Nothing in Section 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.”

3. Since we are in complete agreement with the view taken by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reported as 2000 Crl.L.J. 2899 Virender Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, in which decision various authorities on the subject have been noted, we propose to pen a short decision for the reason the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has extensively dealt with the issue and in our opinion on sound reasoning; which we adopt.















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top