SC/ST Act | "Repeat Appeal" For Bail After Plea Was Dismissed On Merits Not Maintainable Before HC, Accused Can Move Special Court: MP High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “We are of the considered view that after dismissal of the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Special Act by the High Court on any ground, the subsequent appeal before the High Court would not be maintainable. It is needless to mention that the repeat appeal for bail after dismissal of the appeal would not be maintainable even if the accused wishes to prefer the subsequent appeal before the High Court on any changed circumstances. However, since the party cannot be left remediless in the event of any changed circumstances, the aggrieved party has liberty to prefer fresh application for bail before the Special Court. If such an application is preferred, the same may be considered by the Special Court on demonstrating any change in circumstances and needless to mention that the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court may pass an order on its own without being influenced by the order of dismissal of the appeal by the High Court or the earlier order of grant or refusal of bail by the Special Court.”

The present matter involved a reference question as to “Whether a second criminal appeal is maintainable against the same impugned order rejecting bail, after rejection of first criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the accused is not required to file a fresh application for grant of bail before the Special Court after dismissal of first criminal appeal by this Court.”

When the matter came up before the Single Judge, he found two divergent views on the issue in question expressed by two different learned Single Benches. Therefore, the question was referred to a division bench.

The counsel for the appellants submitted that there are two contradictory views expressed by the two different Single Benches under reference, which requires to be considered and decided.

The Government Advocate argued that a repeat appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Special Act") for a grant of bail before this Court is not maintainable but fresh bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences under the Special Act is maintainable before the Trial Court/Special Court.

The counsel relied on the judgments passed in Ketan Vs. State of M.P., Neeraj Verma Vs. State of M.P. and Dushyant Pandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and contended that once the High Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction while deciding the bail application captioned as 'criminal appeal' under Section 14-A(2) of the Special Act against the order of the Special Court/Trial Court granting or refusing to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the statutory enactment of the legislature does not confer authority upon the High Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction against the same order of the Special Court.

However, a fresh bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C on the changed circumstances is maintainable before the Trial Court/Special Court, against which whether allowing or refusing to grant bail, the applicant can invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 14-A(2) of the Special Act against that order of the Special Court.

Meaning of 'Special Court'

As per Section 2(d), "Special Court" means a Court of Session specified as a Special Court in Section 14. The "Exclusive Special Court" which is defined under Section 2(bd) means the Exclusive Special Court established under sub-section (I) of Section 14 exclusively to try the offences under this Act.

Section 14 of the Special Act envisages the establishment of the "Special Court" and "Exclusive Special Court" for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the cases under the Special Act with the power and jurisdiction to try the offences under the Act and further, power to directly take cognizance of the offence under the Act was introduced.

Appeals under Section 14A of SC/ST Act

Section 14A provides for appeals from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law. Sub-section (2) of Section 14A further 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.

The scope of appeal is limited only to see the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court/Special Court. Once the appeal for granting or refusing bail has been considered by the High Court then in the event of change of circumstances, the High Court cannot consider repeated appeal against the same order granting or refusing bail.

The reason is that the doctrine of functus officio (the jurisdiction of the designated authority comes to an end once he has performed his functions for which he was appointed) would apply in such a case. In appeal, the Court is required to consider whether the Special Court has erred in granting or denying relief to the appellant on the basis of the order under challenge.

The Court is required to see whether the order of the Court below can be sustained and its findings are in accordance with the legal and factual issue involved in the consideration of bail application of the accused by the Special Court or not.

Findings

The Court referred to Neeraj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein similar issue was dealt with and the Court observed that once an appeal has been decided under Section 14A of the Special Act, the order that was challenged in the said appeal ceases to exist, therefore, the second appeal against the original order granting or rejecting bail passed by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, is not maintainable. The appellant would have to approach the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court afresh for an order of bail.

The Court further referred to Ketan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it was observed that under Section 14A(2) of the Special Act, criminal appeal is maintainable against an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. However, after rejection or withdrawal of criminal appeal, if Special Court is approached for grant of bail with changed circumstances, then the order so passed will be considered a fresh order on merit and therefore, can be challenged under Section 14A(2) by filing an appeal before the High Court.

The Court thereafter relied on the judgement of High Court Chhattisgarh in Dushyant Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh wherein the Court relying on the provision of Section 14A(2) of the Special Act held that once the appeal has been dismissed by the High Court on merit, the subsequent appeal under any change of circumstances would not be directly maintainable and the only remedy to the accused is to file an application before the Special Court for grant of bail.

Thus, in view of the above judgements that after dismissal of the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Special Act by the High Court on any ground, the subsequent appeal before the High Court would not be maintainable. Furthermore, the repeat appeal for bail after dismissal of the appeal would not be maintainable even if the accused wishes to prefer the subsequent appeal before the High Court on any changed circumstances. In event of changed circumstances, the party shall have the liberty to prefer a fresh application for bail before the Special Court.

The Court thus overruled the divergent order passed in Ramu @ Ramlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh stating it to be an incorrect enunciation of law.

Case Title: Dharam Singh Parihar Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Criminal Appeal No. 9530 Of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order