Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(Mad) 861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
Dhavam
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights Wing, Ramanathapuram
Crl.O.P.No. 7788 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8629 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8631 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8632 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8640 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8641 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8642 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 8951 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 9364 of 1997, Crl.O.P.No. 9382 of 1997 and Crl.O.P.No. 9383 of 1997
Decided On : 18th August, 1997.

Advocates Appeared:
Maharaj, for Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7788 of 1997.V. Chandrakanthan, for Petitoners in Crl.O.P.No. 8629, 8631, 8632, 8640, 8641 and 8642 of 1997.P. Jagadeesan, for Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.8951 of 1997.B. Nedunchezhiyan, for Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No. 9364 of 1997.P.N. Chezhian, for Petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.9382 and 9383 of 1997.
N.R. Elango, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for Respondent.

Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which bars anticipatory bail for offenses under the Act, is constitutionally valid and effectively excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such cases.

Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 18 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - APPLICABILITY - OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT - BAR ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLES 14 AND 21 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Numerous petitioners filed applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail in cases registered against them for offenses punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The petitioners argued that they were entitled to anticipatory bail since others accused of similar offenses had been granted such relief by the court in earlier cases.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the applications were not maintainable due to the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act. The court analyzed the legislative history, various sections of the Act, and relevant provisions of the CrPC to conclude that Section 18 effectively excluded the applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC in cases involving offenses under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 18 of the Act, which bars anticipatory bail for offenses under the Act, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioners could claim anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 18 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 18, stating that the offenses under the Act constituted a separate class and could not be compared with offenses under the Penal Code. The court reasoned that the exclusion of anticipatory bail for offenses under the Act was justified considering the prevailing social conditions and the need to protect victims from intimidation and interference. 2. The court held that the petitioners could not claim anticipatory bail in light of the bar under Section 18 of the Act. The court emphasized that the offenses under the Act were intended to deter discrimination and humiliation faced by members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that granting anticipatory bail could lead to misuse and hinder proper investigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the petitions as not maintainable, holding that the petitioners could not avail the privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC due to the bar imposed by Section 18 of the Act.

Order

Heard.

2. The question that arises for consideration in all these applications filed by the petitioners, invoking Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to get the relief of anticipatory bail in the cases registered against them for the Offence punishable under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is as to whether they could claim such a relief despite the bar under Sec.18 of the said Act.

3. All the counsel appearing for the petitioners, who filed separate applications under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, uniformly appealed to this Court that the petitioners are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, inasmuch as the so many other persons, in other cases, accused of the similar Offences, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on earlier occasions. They would as well produce the carbon copies of unreported, orders, earlier passed by this Court.

4. Mr.N.R. Elango, the learned Government Advocate would raise a preliminary objection before this Court, contending that all the applications are not maintainable, in view of Sec.18 of the S.C. and S.T. Act, 1989, by which, the applicability of Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is totally excluded. In order to substantiate his contention, he cited various authorities rendered by this Court as well as the other High Courts and the Apex Court.

5. I have heard the submissions made by the respective counsel and gone through the citations referred by them.

6. To deal with the arguments submitted before this Court, it will be useful to refer to the legislative history as well as the various sections of the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. Before the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was passed, the Parliament had passed an Act, known as ‘The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955’ to prescribe punishment for the (preaching and practice of ‘Untouchability’)

8. Subsequently, the Parliament passed an Act known as ‘The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955’ in order to make an act penal, if any person on the ground of untouchability is subjected to any disability with regard to the observance of any social or religious custom, usage or ceremony or taking part in any religious procession.

9. Even then, it was felt that ‘atrocities’ committed on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had not diminished. Therefore, the Parliament passed the Act known as “The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

10. The preamble of the Act is quoted below:

“An act to prevent the commission of Offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such Offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such Offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

11. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, while moving the same in the Parliament, read as under:

“Despite various measures to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of Civil rights, they are subjected to various Offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons/”

12. From the reading of the preamble of the present Act, it is clear that it had been enacted to prevent the commission of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, this intention has to be taken into account, while considering the various sections of the Act as well as the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

13. In this context, the view expressed by Swami Vivekananda as quoted in his book ‘Modern India’ is quite relevant:

“Forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis