ORDER

1. The present criminal appeal is filed under section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as POA Act) r/w section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. Counsel for the State raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal with the contention that the 2nd Criminal Appeal under section 14-A(2) of POA Act once dismissed is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 1502/2023 (Neeraj Verma vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) . He referred the para - 6 & 7 of the said judgment which is reproduced as under :-

6. Once an appeal is dismissed, the appellant would have to approach the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court afresh for an order of bail. While entertaining such a second application, the learned Court below can pass an order granting bail, if it finds a change in circumstance. The constraint of an order passed by the High Court under 438 or 439 baring the inferior Court from entertaining an application for bail in line with judicial propriety, will not apply in the case of a fresh application under the Special Act. Even though the High Court may have dismissed an appeal against the previous order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the application for bail of the accused, a change in circumstance demonstrated by the accused before the learned trial Court does not bar it from entertaining the fresh application.

7. Thus, this Court finds that the High Court cannot entertain an application under section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. for an offense under the Special Act as that authority has been taken away from the High Court impliedly by section 14A (2) of the Special Act which makes the High Court a Court of Appeal which can only examine the correctness of an order passed by the learned Court below under section 438 or 439 for an offence under the Special Act. This Court is also of the opinion as mentioned hereinabove that a second application for grant of bail by the accused before the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court is maintainable on changed circumstances when demonstrated by the accused and the trial Court shall not be bound by the fact that its previous order of rejection has been approved of by the High Court under its appellate jurisdiction.

3. This Court in the case of Neeraj (supra) held that the High Court cannot entertain an application under section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. for an offence under the Special Act as that authority has been taken away from the High Court impliedly by section 14A(2) of the Special Act which makes the High Court a Court of Appeal which can only examine the correctness of an order passed by the learned Court below under section 438 or 439 for an offence under the Special Act. It is further held that this Court is of the opinion as mentioned hereinabove that a second application for grant of bail by the accused before the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court is maintainable on changed circumstances when demonstrated by the accused and the trial Court shall not be bound by the fact that its previous order of rejection has been approved of by the High Court under its appellate jurisdiction.

4. It is argued that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing a criminal appeal and, therefore, the second criminal appeal though it is titled as First Criminal Appeal cannot be entertained.

5. Per contra, counsel for the applicant submits that in the light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Neeraj (supra), the applicant has filed an application before the trial Court on the changed circumstances and the trial Court has rejected the application by the impugned order and the trial Court has passed a fresh order and, therefore, this Court can examine the validity of the said order and the appeal under section 14-A(2) of the Act has to be treated as First Criminal Appeal and this Court has to examine the order on merit.

6. In