Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail for offenses under the Act.

Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9443 of 2022

Appellant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Sengar,Ruchita Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar,Damodar

Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a copy of order

dated 14.11.2022 relating to co-accused persons, namely,

Ashutosh Singh Sengar and Chandra Bhan Singh Sengar,

by which they were granted anticipatory bail by a

coordinate Bench of this Court, is taken on record.

Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsels for the appellants,

Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri

Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and

perused the record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated

12.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act,

Lalitpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1390 of 2022 (Chandra

Bhan Singh Sengar and Others Vs. State of U.P.) moved on

behalf of the appellants in Case Crime No. 229 of 2022,

under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 504, 506, 120-

B I.P.C., Section 4/76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Section

3(1)द, ध SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mahroni, District-

Lalitpur.

The trial court had rejected the anticipatory bail application

on the ground that as per the averments made in the first

information report, prima facie offence under S.C./S.T. Act

has been committed by the appellants. Since provisions of

Section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 prohibits the application of provisions of Section 438

Cr.P.C. to offence committed under S.C./S.T. (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, the anticipatory bail application of the

appellants was not maintainable and was accordingly

rejected.

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that :-

(i) as per prosecution story, one Shyam Ji Sengar and the

appellants in collusion with other co-accused persons are

stated to have duped about 300-400 persons to the tune of

Rs.30-35 crores on the pretext that their money shall be

doubled within a stipulated period;

(ii) as per the first information report, the main allegation

of fraud and cheating is against co-accused, Shyam Ji

Sengar and the appellants have been named in the first

information report as they are related to the aforesaid main

witness;

(iii) the dispute between the informant/victim and of

appellants is mainly of civil nature and first information

report has been lodged to pressurize the appellants for

making unjustified payment;

(iv) as per the applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the

present case, the appellants have relied upon the

judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi

Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in

AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1036;

(v) similarly circumstanced co-accused persons, Ashutosh

Singh Sengar and Chandra Bhan Singh Sengar, have

already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by coordinate

Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2022 passed in

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.

No. 10670 of 2022 and the appellants are also entitled to

be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and

learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the

prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and submitted

that the jurisdiction in application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is

barred as per provisions of Section 18 of the S.C./S.T.

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the appellants are

not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

material available on record.

On perusal of the averments made in the first information

report, it transpi