DILIP B. BHOSALE, CJ.

1. The order of reference dated 21 December 2017 in Satyendra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38755 of 2017], passed by a learned Single Judge, while dealing with three Criminal Misc. Bail Applications and a Criminal Appeal (Defective), takes a divergent view from the one expressed by another learned Single Judge in Janardan Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.2943 of 2017) and Rohit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Defective No.523 of 2017). In all these cases, the provisions of Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Amending Act") fell for consideration. Apart from the divergent opinions expressed in the above cases, on the questions centering around Section 14A of the Amending Act, we have also taken suo moto cognizance of the issues arising there from in Criminal PIL No. 8 of 2018. We had accordingly clubbed the aforementioned two matters together.

2. In the meanwhile Sri Vishnu Bihari Tiwari, a practicing Advocate of this Court preferred Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No.-11 of 2018 challenging the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 14A. By way of an amendment an additional challenge was raised in respect of the second proviso to Section 14A (3) of the Amending Act Both these provisions were challenged on the ground of being unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. This petition was tagged with the present reference and notices were duly issued to the Attorney General of India. The learned ASG has appeared on his behalf as well as the Union of India in these proceedings.

3. It would be advantageous to firstly reproduce the questions that are framed in the reference order which occasioned constitution of a Larger Bench initially. The questions framed in the reference order dated 21 December 2017, read thus:

"(i) Whether in matters of offences committed before 26.1.2016, from which date amending Act no.1 of 2016 inserting/adding provisions of appeal against orders allowing or refusing an application for bail by the Special or Exclusive Special Judge under S.C./S.T. Act has been enforced, the filing of appeal will be incompetent on the ground of offence having been committed prior to enforcement of above provisions of section 14-A and an application for bail under general provisions of law section 439 Cr.P.C. before this Court, would be competent as held in the case of Janardan Pandey (supra) ?

(ii) Whether the provisions of newly added section 14-A (3) and its proviso prescribing the limitation period of 90 days from the date of order, further providing for the condonation of delay by the High Court in appeals preferred beyond the period of 90 days and again providing a maximum period of 180 days, after which no appeal shall be entertained, puts absolute bar on the right of appeal and renders the aggrieved persons remediless or it only suspends the general provisions of seeking bail from the High Court under the provisions of section 439 Cr.P.C. for a limited period of 180 days after which the provisions of section 14-A becomes obsolete and ineffective for ever and the right to seek bail before the High Court under general provisions of law section 439 Cr.P.C. stands revived as held in the case of Rohit (supra) or the accused may move fresh application for bail before Special or Exclusive Special Court and in case of its rejection may have fresh right of appeal under section 14-A of the Act ?

(1.i) Whether an appeal filed under section 14-A of S.C./S.T. Act may be converted into an application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. on account of offence having been committed prior to 26.1.2016, the date of enforcement of Act No.1 of 2016 or on account of expiry of more than 180 days from the date of impugned order of Special or