Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused apprehending arrest in a case registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court found that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied in this case and that no material had been presented to justify an exception to this rule. Additionally, the absence of the case diary deprived the Court of any factual foundation on which it could assess the veracity of the allegations. Therefore, the anticipatory bail was rejected.
Facts
The petitioner had been booked under Sections 341, 323, and 294 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case was registered at the Mahanga Police Station. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking protection from coercive action by filing an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The State, however, had not produced the case diary during the hearing, which is essential to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case and to examine the context of the allegations.
Issues
- Whether the anticipatory bail plea is maintainable in light of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the absence of the case diary hinders the Court from determining the presence of any prima facie case or grounds for exception.
- Whether the petitioner had demonstrated circumstances justifying an exception to the general bar under the SC/ST Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that the alleged offences were frivolous. He argued that the offences under the Indian Penal Code were bailable and that the provisions under the SC/ST Act had been invoked only to harass him. The petitioner submitted that there was no material suggesting that the alleged acts were committed “on the ground of caste,” which is a necessary ingredient under the SC/ST Act. It was argued that in the absence of any caste-based intention or act, the bar under Section 18 should not apply.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the anticipatory bail plea on the ground that the SC/ST Act provisions were clearly attracted and that Section 18 of the Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted that since the offence involved abuses and assault directed at a member of the Scheduled Caste, and the case had been registered under specific provisions of the Act, the statutory bar was fully operational. Moreover, it was pointed out that the case diary was not available for the Court’s perusal, and in such a situation, the High Court should refrain from exercising discretionary relief.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act specifically bars the application of Section 438 CrPC in cases where a prima facie case exists for the commission of an offence under the Act. While the Court acknowledged the principle that this bar is not absolute—as held in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India—it emphasized that in the absence of material showing false implication, the protection under anticipatory bail cannot be extended. The non-availability of the case diary prevented the Court from undertaking any evaluation to ascertain whether such an exception was made out.
Precedent Analysis
Though the Court did not cite any judgment explicitly, its reasoning followed the law laid down in:
- State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18 barring anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act.
- Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454, which initially allowed anticipatory bail in special cases but was later clarified in:
- Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, where the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is not barred absolutely but can be granted in exceptional cases where no prima facie case is made out.
The Court here found that in the absence of case records, it could not verify whether such an exception applied.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that when the SC/ST Act is invoked, and there is no material on record such as the case diary, the Court is handicapped in forming any view as to the false nature of the accusation or the context of the incident. It held:
“Unless the case diary is available, it would not be prudent on the part of the Court to opine whether the allegations attract the bar under Section 18 or fall within any exception.”
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail plea was found to be premature and without sufficient foundation to invoke judicial discretion.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed in a case under the SC/ST Act due to the absence of a case diary and failure to establish a case of false implication. The judgment reaffirmed that the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not to be diluted unless a clear exception is made out, supported by case material.
Implications
This judgment serves as a reminder that anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases is an exceptional remedy and must be grounded in verifiable facts, including the case diary. Courts will not exercise discretion in a vacuum and will refrain from granting bail without records supporting false implication. It also reaffirms the procedural discipline required in such sensitive matters where caste-based offences are alleged.
FAQs
1. Can anticipatory bail be granted in cases under the SC/ST Act?
Yes, but only in rare and exceptional cases where there is no prima facie case and evidence of false implication exists.
2. Is the production of the case diary necessary for deciding anticipatory bail under special laws?
Yes. The case diary allows the Court to assess the context and merit of the allegations and is crucial in deciding whether the bar under Section 18 applies.
3. What does Section 18 of the SC/ST Act provide?
It bars the application of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, i.e., anticipatory bail, where a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out.
