Dharam Singh Parihar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ, and Vivek Jain, J.
Dharam Singh Parihar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Criminal Appeals No. 9530 of 2024, 9968 of 2024, 10414 of 2024 and 13656 of 2024 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 9.9.2024 passed by the Single Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 9530 of 2024; Decided on 17.3.2025

Advocates:
Ranjan Banerjee, Ms. Abhilasha Bagri, Aryan Urmaliya, Manoj Kumar Mishra and Shailendra Dwivedi for respective appellants; Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -- S. 14A(2) -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- maintainability of repeat appeal against same impugned order rejecting bail -- held -- scope of appeal is limited only to see correctness of order passed by trial Court/Special Court -- once appeal for granting or refusing bail has been considered by High Court then again in event of change of circumstances, High Court cannot consider repeated appeal against the same order granting or refusing bail -- doctrine of functus officio would apply in such case -- only remedy would be to file fresh application before Special Court for grant of bail -- in that situation, if bail application is rejected by Special Court then repeat appeal can be filed before High Court against that order -- order once affirmed or set aside in appeal by High Court cannot be revisited by means of another criminal appeal subsequently filed. (1969) 2 SCC 793 followed. Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2023 decided on 5.4.2023, Criminal Appeal No. 7453 of 2023 decided on 31.8.2023, Criminal Appeal No. 3261 of 2024 decided on 10.4.2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2022 decided on 12.4.2023 (CG) approved. Criminal Appeal No. 4668 of 2017 decided on 5.12.2017 overruled. [Paras 12 to 15
(2) Bail -- mere mentioning of criminal appeal as second, third or fourth would not change the right of applicant to challenge fresh order. [Para 14
(3) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -- S. 14A(2) -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 439 -- maintainability of repeat appeal against same impugned order rejecting bail -- held -- after dismissal of appeal by High Court on any ground, subsequent appeal before High Court would not be maintainable, even on changed circumstances. Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2023 decided on 5.4.2023, Criminal Appeal No. 7453 of 2023 decided on 31.8.2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2022 decided on 12.4.2023 (CG) relied on. [Para 19
¼1½ vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vfèkfu;e] 1989 && /kkjk 14d¼2½ && naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && tekur ukeatwj djus ds ,d gh vkf{kIr vkns'k ds fo:) nwljh vihy pyus ;ksX; gksuk && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && vihy dh O;kfIr fopkj.k U;k;ky;@fo'ks"k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh 'kq)rk ns[kus ek= rd lhfer gksrh gS && tekur eatwj ;k ukeatwj djus ds fy, vihy ij mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj dj fy, tkus ij] iqu% ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ifjorZu dh n'kk esa mPp U;k;ky; tekur eatwj ;k ukeatwj djus ds mlh vkns'k ds fo:) iqu% vihy ij fopkj ugha dj ldrk && ml n'kk esa indk;Z&fuo`fÙk dk fl)kar ykxw gksxk && ,dek= mipkj tekur eatwj fd, tkus ds fy, fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ds le{k uohu vkosnu çLrqr djus dk gksxk && ml ifjfLFkfr esa] ;fn fo'ks"k U;k;ky; }kjk tekur vkosnu ukeatwj fd;k tkrk gS rks ml vkns'k ds fo:) mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k iqu% vihy çLrqr dh tk ldrh gS && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vihy esa vfHkiq"V ;k vikLr fd;k tk pqdk vkns'k ckn esa çLrqr dh xbZ ,d vU; nkafMd vihy ds ek/;e ls iqu% [kksyk ugha tk ldrkA ¼1969½ 2 ,llhlh 793 vuqlfjrA nkafMd vihy Ø- 1502 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 5-4-2023] nkafMd vihy Ø- 7453 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 31-8-2023] nkafMd vihy Ø- 3261 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 10-4-2024 rFkk nkafMd vihy Ø- 1797 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 12-4-2023 ¼N-x-½ vuqeksfnrA nkafMd vihy Ø- 4668 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 5-12-2017 myVk x;kA ¼iSjk 12 ls 15
¼2½ tekur && nkafMd vihy dk mYys[k f}rh;] r`rh; ;k prqFkZ ds :i esa fd, tkus ek= ls uohu vkns'k ij vk{ksi djus dk vkosnd dk vf/kdkj ifjofrZr ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 14
¼3½ vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vfèkfu;e] 1989 && /kkjk 14d¼2½ && naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 439 && tekur ukeatwj djus ds ,d gh vkf{kIr vkns'k ds fo:) nwljh vihy pyus ;ksX; gksuk && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus ds mijkar] ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Hkh] mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ijorhZ vihy pyus ;ksX; ugha gksxhA nkafMd vihy Ø- 1502 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 5-4-2023] nkafMd vihy Ø- 7453 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 31-8-2023 rFkk nkafMd vihy Ø- 1797 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 12-4-2023 ¼N-x-½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19

ORDER

Kait, C.J. -- 1. By order dated 9.9.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9530/2024, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question to be considered by this Court :--

"as as to whether a second criminal appeal is maintainable against the same impugned order rejecting bail, after rejection of first criminal appeal under section 14(A) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the accused is not required to file a fresh application for grant of bail before the Special Court after dismissal of first criminal appeal by this Court".

2. Similar is the situation in connected Criminal Appeal Nos.9968/2024, 10414/2024 and 13656/2024. Hence, we are proceeding ahead to consider the said referred question.

3. When the matter came before the learned Single Judge, he found two divergent views on the issue in question expressed by two different learned Single Benches. On one way, in Criminal Appeal No.4668/2017 (Ramu Ramu @ Ramlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 5.12.2017 following observations have been made :--

"10. Further, the 'law of bail' is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except by due process of law. It is often said that 'bail' is the right and refusal thereof is an exception thereto.

11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, the provision for 'appeal' under section 14(A)(2) of the Act of 1989 in effect is an application for regular bail against rejection re order by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court under section 439 Cr.P.C., for the reason that section 14(A)(2) opens up non-obstinate clause providing; notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

12. Section 378 deals with appeal in case of acquittal, sub-section (3) of section 378 Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.

As such, the nomenclature of 'appeal' used in section 14A of the Act of 1989 is not an appeal in strict sense but, a provision enabling a person before the High Court against granting or refusing bail by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court specified therein.

If an appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Act of 1989 for grant of bail is refused by the High Court and the accused prefers a fresh appeal for grant of bail then if interpreted the word 'appeal' in its strict sense as an appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C., then the provision shall be in direct conflict with the settled law as the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata does not apply to a bail application and also in conflict with the personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

13. In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs paragraph of the order, the objection on behalf of the respondent/State is overruled. It is held that a fresh appeal is maintainable after rejection of first appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Act of 1989.""

4. On other way, in another case i.e. Atul Rajput v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another in Criminal Appeal No.3261/2024 vide order dated 10.4.2024 relying on the decision dated 31.8.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.7453/2023 (Ketan v. State of M.P.), the another coordinate Single Bench observed as follows :

3. The question which arise for consideration is whether second or more appeal under section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be repeatedly filed against one and same order by which an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the trial Court.

4. In the case, two appeals preferred assailing order dated 26.10.2021 have already been dismissed. As per the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court