Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by two petitioners involved in a criminal case registered under multiple serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act, and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court refused to entertain the pre-arrest bail plea, citing the long list of past criminal cases, the grave nature of the offences alleged, and the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The Court clarified that while the SC/ST Act does not impose an absolute bar, in this case, the circumstances did not justify the exercise of discretion in the petitioners’ favour.
Facts
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case registered as Special G.R. Case No. 60 of 2025, arising from Sorada Police Station Case No. 198 of 2025. They were accused under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
The petitioners contended that the allegations were exaggerated and politically motivated. However, one of the petitioners had an extensive list of prior criminal cases dating back to 2012, involving serious charges including attempt to murder, murder, rioting, unlawful assembly, and various Arms Act offences.
Issues
- Whether the anticipatory bail application was maintainable in light of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
- Whether the petitioners, particularly in light of one petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents, were entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether the allegations levelled were sufficient to reject anticipatory bail under general criminal law and special enactments.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the allegations made against them were exaggerated and politically motivated. They submitted that they feared false implication and harassment and were therefore entitled to protection by way of anticipatory bail. They further submitted that the Court had discretion to entertain the application under exceptional circumstances, notwithstanding the involvement of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the anticipatory bail application, primarily on the ground of non-maintainability in view of the bar created by Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The State contended that given the past criminal record of one of the petitioners and the gravity of the current charges, no leniency should be shown. The prosecution pointed to 12 prior criminal cases involving serious and violent offences under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and Explosives Substances Act as reasons for denial of bail.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that although there is no absolute bar on entertaining a pre-arrest bail application in matters involving offences under the SC/ST Act, the threshold for granting such relief is high. The Court cited the well-settled principle that anticipatory bail under such provisions should be an exception and not the rule, especially in cases involving grievous allegations or habitual offenders.
The petitioner’s record included prior offences under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault on public servant), and several provisions of the Arms Act, among others. The nature of the present allegations under the SC/ST Act and BNS, including organised violence and use of arms, were found to be grave enough to deny the relief.
Precedent Analysis
While no specific case law was cited in the judgment, the principles applied align with:
- State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 — which upheld the constitutionality of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barring anticipatory bail.
- Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 — where the Supreme Court held that past criminal antecedents are a relevant consideration for bail.
- Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 — clarified that anticipatory bail can be granted in exceptional cases under SC/ST Act if there is no prima facie case.
The Court followed the spirit of these decisions, denying relief due to the gravity and background of the accused.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that one of the petitioners had been involved in 12 prior criminal cases including extremely serious charges under the IPC and Arms Act. These past involvements, coupled with the serious allegations in the current FIR, led the Court to conclude that the relief of anticipatory bail was not warranted. The Court noted that the allegations included organised violence, involvement of weapons, and caste-based offences.
The Court held:
“Given the antecedents and the nature of allegations, the Court is not inclined to entertain the ABLAPL.”
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by two petitioners accused of grave offences under the BNS, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act. Emphasising the petitioners’ criminal history and the serious allegations in the present case, the Court found no grounds to exercise its discretion in their favour.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the rigorous standards applied in cases involving the SC/ST (PoA) Act and underlines the importance of clean antecedents in pre-arrest bail pleas. The judgment serves as a cautionary message that prior criminal conduct will significantly reduce the chances of securing anticipatory bail, particularly when serious allegations and special enactments are involved.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can anticipatory bail be granted in SC/ST Act cases?
Yes, but only in exceptional circumstances where there is no prima facie case. Courts exercise caution due to the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
2. Does a long criminal history affect the chances of getting pre-arrest bail?
Yes. A long history of criminal cases weighs heavily against the accused and generally leads to denial of anticipatory bail.
3. Is it enough to claim false implication to get bail under special laws?
No. Mere allegations of false implication without credible supporting material are insufficient for securing anticipatory bail, especially under laws like the SC/ST Act.
