PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Phulla Dass
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Writ Petition No. 252 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 6, 1997
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 18 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - NOT MAINTAINABLE - SECTION 18 OF THE ACT BARS ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CASES INVOLVING OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT - THIS IS A SPECIAL MEASURE TO PROTECT MEMBERS OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES FROM ATROCITIES - THE RIGHT TO ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - THE COURT'S INHERENT POWERS CAN BE USED TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, BUT NOT TO DEFEAT THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 18 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Phulla Dass, was accused of committing offences under Section 452/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He filed a petition for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner then filed the present petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petition for anticipatory bail was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which bars anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Act. The Court also held that the right to anticipatory bail is not an essential ingredient of Art. 21 of the Constitution and that the Court's inherent powers can be used to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional cases, but not to defeat the specific provisions of Section 18 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 2. Whether the right to anticipatory bail is an essential ingredient of Art. 21 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 18 of the Act bars anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Act. This is a special measure to protect members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities. 2. The right to anticipatory bail is not an essential ingredient of Art. 21 of the Constitution. The Court's inherent powers can be used to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional cases, but not to defeat the specific provisions of Section 18 of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
1. On basis of the statement of Gurmit Singh, First Information Report No. 3 at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib had been recorded. He had recited that in the village there were many cows those were wandering in the Village. On 15-1-1997 he was in his house and talking to his brother Nirmal Singh and uncle Rulda Singh pertaining to their domestic problems. Some of the cows that were wandering came in front of their house. At that time the petitioner son of Niranjan Dass was holding a gandasi in his hands. He also came there. He started abusing the complainant and said "Bhian Choda Chamara after taking the milk of cows now left the cows to wander in the village. "The complainant and his relatives tried to prevail upon the petitioner not to do so but he entered their house and thereupon said "come out Chamaro, let me see you today. "The petitioner gave a blow from the reverse side of the gandasi on the complainant. He raised an alarm Mar ditta, Mar Ditta. The brother and uncle of the complainant tried to save him. The petitioner gave another blow from the reverse side of the gandasi on the person of complainant and ran away. While going away, he had threatened that the complainant would be eliminated.
2. By virtue of the present petition Phulla Dass petitioner seeks that he may be admitted to bail (sic) because the first information report has been registered with respect to offences punishable under Section 452/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act).
3. Earlier the petitioner had filed an application in this Court seeking anticipatory bail and on 17-2-1997 the following order had been passed :-
"Petitioner seeks bail/anticipatory bail with respect to F.I.R. No. 3 dated 16-1-1997 registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. It pertains to an offence punishable under Sections 452/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.In the facts and circumstances it could be appropriate that the concerned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib decides the said application. Petitioner would appear surrender before the Court in person and submitted his necessary application seeking bail. Learend Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge may decide the said application on merits by 24-2-1997. Till then the petitioner shall not be arrested.Copy of the order be given Dasti under the signature of the Reader.Sd/-(V.S. AGGARWAL)Feb. 17, 1997 JUDGE."
Thereupon, the petitioner had approached the Court of Sessions with a fresh petition. It came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bapu Gouda V/s. State of Karnataka, (1996) 1 Rec Cri R 453 : (1996 Cri LJ 1117) and held that the petition seeking anticipatory bail was not maintainable. Accordingly, it was dismissed. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the first information report has been added simply with an object to humiliate the petitioner. False facts have been asserted. According to him, it is a fit and proper case where inherent powers of the Court should be exercised admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail. On the contrary the respondents urge that keeping in view the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the main controversy in the present case is with respect to the rigors of Section 18 of the Act.
5. The above said Act had been enacted to prevent to commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is to provide special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.