The Special Court under the SC/ST (POA) Act is empowered to cancel bail granted by the High Court for violating bail conditions as per Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.

“C.R.”

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2022 Can the Court of Session, in the exercise of the power under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C, cancel the bail granted by the High Court to an accused consequent on his violating the bail conditions?

Is the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court specified or constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 empowered to cancel the bail granted by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 14 A on the ground of violation of bail conditions invoking Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C? 2. These two important legal questions arise for consideration in the above criminal appeals.

3. The appellants are the accused Nos. 2 to 7, 9 to 12, 15 and 16 in SC No. 265/2018 on the file of the Special Court For SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad (for short “the Court below”). They along with the accused Nos. 1, 8, 13 and 14 face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 342, 352, 364, 367, 368 and 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3(1) (d), (r) (s) and 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short “SC/ST(PoA) Act”).

4. The prosecution allegation is that a mentally challenged tribal youth was tied up and brutally beaten to death by the accused, who caught him from a nearby forest, accusing him of stealing rice from a grocery shop.

5. All the accused were arrested on 24/2/2018 and they were remanded to judicial custody. The bail applications filed by them at the Court below during crime stage were rejected as per the order dated 3/04/2018. The accused challenged the orders rejecting the bail in appeal at this Court invoking Section 14A of the SC/ST(PoA) Act. In the meanwhile, the final report was filed on 22/5/2018. The appeal was allowed on 30/5/2018 granting bail to all the accused on conditions. The condition No.'c' which is relevant here reads thus:

“The accused shall not have any contact with the witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise till the whole trial process is over, and they shall not make any attempt to influence or threaten the witnesses in any manner.”

6. The trial of the case commenced on 28/4/2022. Altogether 16 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution as PW1 to PW16. Out of them, only 2 supported the prosecution. The remaining 14 turned hostile. According to the prosecution, those witnesses were won over by the accused. It is alleged that those witnesses and the appellants were in constant contact with each other over phone. Alleging that the said act of the appellants amounts to violation of condition ‘c’ in the bail order, the prosecution approached the Court below to cancel their bail invoking Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Court below after hearing both sides cancelled the bail granted to the appellants as per the order dated 20/8/2022. These appeals have been filed challenging the said order.

7. I have heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused Nos.3, 6, 9 to 12 and 16, Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 5, Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the accused Nos.4, 7 and 15, Sri.P.V.Jeevesh, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Director General of Prosecution.

8. Assailing the impugned order, Sri. Vijaya