Important points:
The powers of the Court with respect to the revisional jurisdiction is concerned, it was found that the provisions of S.397, Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded by virtue of the special provisions made in S.14 -A.

ORDER :

The applicants have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. The offence alleged, among others, is also an offence under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['Act', for short]. The applicants had earlier approached the jurisdictional court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC and the same was dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2021 in Crl.MP No.69/2021. The applicants have preferred this bail application disregarding the embargo under Section 14A of the Act. The Registry has raised an objection regarding maintainability.

2. The matter is well settled. This Court has in Ajay D Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Another [2017(1) KHC 412] held that only the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court constituted under S.14 of the Act can have jurisdiction to entertain an application for Bail with respect to offences committed under Act 33 of 1989. The power of the Court of Session and of the High Court in its original criminal jurisdiction to entertain an application under S.438 or S.439 of the Code has been impliedly taken away by S.14A of the said Act. The power of the High Court in the matter is only appellate jurisdiction as provided under S.14A(2) of the said Act. Appeal can lie only against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court and unless there is an order of the Special Court refusing bail, the accused will have no right to file an appeal before the High Court praying for grant of bail to them. Existence of an order of the Special Court is, therefore, sine qua non for approaching the High Court.

3. Similarly, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had the opportunity to consider the constitutional validity of Section 14A of the Act in the decision In re : Provisions of 14A of the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 [2018 Crl.LJ 5010], and held that while the constitutional and inherent powers of this Court are not "ousted" by S.14 -A, they cannot be invoked in cases and situations where an appeal would lie under S.14 -A. Insofar as the powers of the Court with respect to the revisional jurisdiction is concerned, it was found that the provisions of S.397, Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded by virtue of the special provisions made in S.14 -A.

4. In Ravindra Thakur and Another v. State of Bihar 2017 KHC 4880 : 2017 CriLJ 4050 a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has held that by virtue of amendment of S.14 of the Act, the accused has been given right to file an appeal before the High Court against an order of refusing bail of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, at the same time an appeal shall lie also against an order of granting bail by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, at the instance of any aggrieved person.

In the instant case, the accused had applied for bail before the Special Court, and the same was rejected. The only remedy available to him is to file an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry is perfectly justified and therefore upheld.