Anticipatory Bail in SC ST Act

Anticipatory Bail In SC ST  Act

Prathavi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India, 2020

In a landmark judgment, the three-judge bench of Supreme Court in the matter of Prathavi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India 10 February, 2020 delivered a landmark verdict on the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (SC/ST Act). The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the SC/ST communities, while preventing the misuse of the law against innocent person. Anticipatory bail in SC ST Act can be some exceptional cases.

The Court upheld that the constitutionality of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail in cases filed under the Act. However, it clarified that if no prima facie case is made out against the accused, and then anticipatory bail can be granted.

Brief Facts:

The Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was enacted to prevent the crimes and discrimination against SC/ST communities. The act prohibits the anticipatory bail under section 18 and later section 18A, added in 2018.

The petitioners challenged the validity of section 18A of the act. It is submitted that section 18A to nullify the judgment in  Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6 SCC 454, in which following directions were issued.

Section- 18A for the purpose of this Act:-

•  The preliminary inquiry shall not be required for registration of FIR against any person.
•  The investigating officer shall not be required for approval for the arrest.
•  The provision of section 438(anticipatory bail) of the code shall not be applied to a case under this Act.

Issues:

The issues raised in the case were whether the absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities Act.

Can anticipatory bail be granted under SC/ST Act after 2018 amendment?

Whether section 18A of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail, is constitutional, violative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution.

Analysis, Reasoning of the Court:

In view of the acknowledged misuse of the law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can be made only after the approval of the appointing authority and arrest of a non-public servant can be made only after the approval of the SSP, which may be granted in appropriate cases if deemed necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons should be examined by the Magistrate for permitting further detention and preliminary inquiry is permissible only in the circumstances as per law laid down by this court in Lalita kumari vs Government of UP 2014 SCC.

To avoid an innocent being falsely implicated, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted by the concerned DSP to ascertain whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.

Supreme Court Judgment:

In the Case of Prathavi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India 10 February, 2020 upholding the 2018 amendment, the court ruled that the anticipatory bail will not be granted in cases of SC/ST Act unless there is a prima facie case.

No absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under SC/ST Atrocities Act.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court issued guidelines for safeguards for innocent persons; Justice Ravindra Bhat observed that the anticipatory bail can be granted in exceptional cases where prima facie case is not made out.

The court also emphasized the   importance   of protecting SC/ST communities   from atrocities act, while also ensuring that unnecessary arrests are not made out due to false cases. The court further held that;

,        That arrest of public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority.

,       The arrest of a non-public servant can be made only after the approval of SSP.

,       To avoid false implication of an innocent person.

So far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, Justice, has held that in cases where there is no Prima Facie material in the complaint for arrest, the court has the inherent power to direct pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court observed and emphasized that while considering any pre-arrest application, the High Court has to strike a balance between two interests, i.e., the power should not be exercised in a manner that it turns into jurisdiction under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather it should be exercised sparingly and such orders   should be passed only in exceptional cases where prima facie no offense is made out as shown in FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law.

The challenge to the provisions is academic. In view of the above clarifications, we dispose of the petitions.