IMPORTANT POINT
It is true that the accused may not find the presence of the victim before the court very convenient, more particularly, when the accused is seeking bail. However, as stated above, the principles of law with regard to the grant of bail will remain the same, whether the accused is seeking bail in connection with an offence of murder or any offence under the Atrocities Act.

JUDGMENT

J.B.Pardiwala, J.

By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs :

"(a) To allow this application;

(b) To hold and declare that the provisions of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

(c) To issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing and setting aside provisions of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being ultra vires to Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

(d) To direct that the provisions of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be read down as directory and not mandatory so as to empower the concerned court to consider application of bail without issuing formal Notice to the complainant;

(e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, to stay the implementation and operation of provisions of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989;

(f) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court."

2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be summarised as under :

3. The writ-applicant is serving as a Manager in a company running in the name of the Western Auto-spares situated at Ahmedabad. It appears from the materials on record that one of the employees of the factory got a First Information Report registered against the writ-applicant for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (1 of 2016). In connection with the said FIR, the writ-applicant was arrested by the police and later was ordered to be released on bail.

4. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the registration of the FIR against him by the employee of the factory is nothing but gross misuse of the provisions of the Atrocities Act. It is his case that he is a victim of malicious, vexatious and frivolous prosecution.

5. It appears that in view of Section 15A of the Amendment Act, 2015, falling within Chapter IVA, the first informant, in his capacity as the so-called victim, was also heard by the Special Court before granting bail to the writ-applicant.

6. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the amended provisions in the form of Section 15A(3) and (5) are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India being manifestly arbitrary.

7. According to the writ-applicant, Section 15A(3) and (5) should be construed as directory and not mandatory. According to the writ-applicant, the impugned provisions of law infringe the right of an accused to seek bail from the competent court in connection with a particular offence as it is now mandatory for the Special Court, while considering the plea of bail in connection with the offences under the Atrocities Act, to hear the victim. This, according to the writ-applicant, could be termed as a very drastic and draconian provision of law.

8. It is the case of the writ-applicant that except in cases under the Atrocities Act, for no other offence, it is mandatory for any court to hear the victim/complainant while considering the plea of bail put forward by any accused. According to the writ-applicant, no exception should be carved out when it comes to considering the plea of bail. To put it in other words, it is the case of the writ-applicant that even while hearing a bail application of an accused charged with an offence of murder or any other serious offence, if it is not mandatory for the court to hear the victim/complainant, then why the provision like Section 15A(3) and (5) of the Amendment Act should be introduced by the Legislature.

9. In such circumstances referred to above, the writ-applicant prays that Section 15A(3) of the Amendmen