Radhey Sham vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2517

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2517

ANOOP CHITKARA
Radhey Sham – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
105	18.03.2023	Sadar Hisar, Hansi	323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989

Criminal Case no. before trial Court	CIS No.BA/1078/2023
	CNR No.HRHS010051802023.
	Date of decision: 17.04.2023

CRM-18034-2023

Allowed as prayed for.

CRA-S-1200-2023

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under section 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail.

2. The appellant had filed a bail application before the ASJ,Hisar, which was dismissed on 17.04.2023.

3. In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India , AIR 2020 SC 1036 , a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down Section 18 by declaring as follows,

[10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A