The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are the accused and the second respondent is the informant in Crime No.167 of 2020 of Chirappu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Ss.323, 498A, 506 and 294(b) I.P.C. and S.3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”).

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

The second respondent married the first appellant on 24.04.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter, she was taken to her Matrimonial Home on the very same day. Ever since the marriage, the second respondent was treated with mental and physical cruelty by the appellants. The second respondent is a member of Scheduled Caste whereas the appellants do not belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

3. The appellants filed application under S.438 Cr.P.C. before the Special Court concerned, which was dismissed by the Special Court as per order dated 14.07.2020 in B.A.No.541/2020, against which this appeal has been filed.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vijayabhanu.P, for the appellants, the learned Counsel Sri. N.D.Arundas for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt Sreeja.V.

5. Perused the case diary.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vijayabhanu P. has argued that since the allegations in this case are prima facie mala fide, the bar under S.18 of the Act is not applicable and hence the appellants are entitled to be granted the relief under S.438 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Sri.N.D.Arundas has argued that since there is express bar under S.18 of the SC & ST Act for the application of S.438 Cr.P.C., this Court has no jurisdiction in this case to grant the relief under S.438 Cr.P.C. to the appellants, particularly when there are allegations against the appellants constituting the offences under the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor Smt.Sreeja V. also supported the argument of the learned Counsel Sri.N.D.Arundas.

7. The first question to be considered is as to whether there is absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act. In order to consider the above question, it will be profitable to go through the provisions of Ss.18 and 18A of the Act. S.18 of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

“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.”

Section 18A of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

“18-A. No enquiry or approval required.- (1) For the purposes of this Act,-

(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.

(2) The provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the object and purpose of S.18 of the Act in detail and held in paragraph 83 in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018 (2) KLT 33 (SC)) thus:-

“83. Our conclusions are as follows:

i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed.

ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D.Suthar (supra) and Dr.N.T.Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra);

iii) In view of acknowledged ab