[SC/ST Act] Accused May Prefer Statutory Appeal Against Bail Rejection By Special Court, Can't Approach High Court U/S 438 & 439 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior on Wednesday observed that High Court cannot entertain applications under section 438 (Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) or 439 (Special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail) CrPC for an offence under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as Section 14A (2) (Appeal) of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior on Wednesday observed that High Court cannot entertain applications under section 438 (Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) or 439 (Special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail) CrPC for an offence under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as Section 14A (2) (Appeal) of the SC/ST Act impliedly takes away that power of the High Court.
The Court reasoned that Section 14A (2) of the SC/ST Act makes the High Court a Court of Appeal which can only examine the correctness of an order passed by the Court below under section 438 or 439 for an offence under the Special Act.
A bench consisting of Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that
Thus, this Court finds that the High Court cannot entertain an application under section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. for an offense under the Special Act ( Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) as that authority has been taken away from the High Court impliedly by Section 14A (2) of the Special Act which makes the High Court a Court of Appeal which can only examine the correctness of an order passed by the learned Court below under section 438 or 439 for an offence under the Special Act.
The appeal was filed by the appellant, which in actuality was an application for bail. The lower court had previously in 2020 dismissed the bail application filed by him.
On the question of the Court as to how the appellant could prefer an appeal against the impugned order when he had already challenged the validity of the order, the Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before the Court that it is settled law that res judicata does not apply while deciding a subsequent application for bail irrespective of the result of the previous application. The Counsel relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court decision in Neeraj Jagatramka v. State of Chhattisgarh to substantiate his argument.
The Court pointed out that Section 20 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 provides that the Act shall have an overriding effect over all other laws which are inconsistent with the Special Act.
Furthermore, Section 14(A)(2) of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.
"A purposive interpretation of the said provision reveals that in the scheme of the Special Act, it is only the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, which has the authority to entertain an application under section 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. Either of the parties, who are dissatisfied by the order passed by the aforementioned Courts, can approach the High Court under Sub-section 2 of Section 14A of the Special Act. The High Court, when it examines the order passed by the lower Court, is acting in an appellate capacity under section 14A of the Special Act which is different from its concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 or 439 of the Cr.P.C." the Court observed.
The Court observed that while entertaining an application for bail under Section 438 or 439 CrPC, the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction along with the Court of Sessions and can examine first-hand whether, on the basis of the allegations against an accused, he is entitled to the benefit of bail or anticipatory bail. However, while acting as a court of appeal under section 14A(2), the High Court is performing the function of an appellate Court where all that it has to examine is the correctness of the order passed by the learned Court below under Section 438 or 439 CrPC.
"Therefore, a second appeal against the original order granting or rejecting bail passed by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, is not maintainable", the Court observed citing that once an appeal has been decided under 14A the order that was challenged in the said appeal ceases to exist.
Furthermore, the Court observed that once an appeal is dismissed, the appellant would have to approach the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court afresh for an order of bail.
The Court also clarified that the constraint of an order passed by the High Court under 438 or 439 barring the inferior Court from entertaining an application for bail in line with judicial propriety, will not apply in the case of a fresh application under the SC/ST Act.
The Court, therefore, held that this Court finds that the High Court cannot entertain an application under section 438 or 439 CrPC for an offence under the SC/ST Act.
On the facts of the Case, the Single Judge Bench rejected the appeal on the ground that the order against which the appeal is preferred was already considered and dismissed by the High Court.
"However, the appellant is given the liberty to approach the learned trial Court afresh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the learned trial Court shall have the liberty of deciding that application afresh on facts, subject to a change of circumstance from its previous order," the Court added.
Case Title: Neeraj v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 49
Counsel appearing for the Appellant: Advocate Ayushi Vyas
Counsel appearing for the Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Ravindra Singh Kushwah and Advocate Rahul Bansal ( For Complainant)