A second criminal appeal against the same order rejecting bail is not maintainable after an initial dismissal under Section 14(A) of the Special Act.

ORDER :

1. By order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9530/2024, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question to be considered by this Court:-

"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 @ Ramlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) vide order dated 05.12.2017 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 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 subsection (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 subsection (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 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 Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another in Criminal Appeal No. 3261/2024 vide order dated 10.04.2024 relying on the decision dated 31.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7453/2023 (Ketan vs. State of M.P.), the another coordinate Single Bench observed as follows:

‘3