The Kerala High Court ruled that applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be entertained when the prosecution materials, on a prima facie reading, disclose the commission of offences under that Act. The Court observed that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to pre-arrest bail, does not apply to persons accused of offences under the Act. In the same textual context, the Court found that Section 482 of the BNSS—which corresponds to the earlier Section 438 CrPC provision—also has no application when the prosecution record prima facie shows the commission of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The decision was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court presiding over an appeal.
The appeal arose from an order of the Special Court that had denied anticipatory bail to two persons accused of committing offences under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants were charged in relation to a confrontation that allegedly involved hurling obscene words, threats, physical assault including stamping on the thigh of a complainant, attacking persons accompanying the complainant, and destroying the complainant’s autorickshaw. The appellants contended that the incident took place during a festive celebration and that they were innocent, arguing that no deliberate attempt had been made to commit any offence and seeking interference with the order refusing anticipatory bail.
In opposing the anticipatory bail application, the prosecution produced documents, including the wound certificate of the injured individual and the First Information Statement, in an effort to show that, prima facie, offences had been committed. The High Court took note of the prosecution’s materials and observed that they indicated that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had allegedly occurred and that the de facto complainant had, with certainty, named the accused individuals. The Court noted that under the relevant provisions of the Act, knowledge of the complainant’s caste identity can be presumed when the complainant names the accused with certainty.
The High Court further observed that the prosecution materials, taken at face value, established, prima facie, the elements of offences under both the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the non-bailable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The judge therefore concluded that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applied to the corresponding provision under the BNSS, making anticipatory bail unavailable to the appellants in the circumstances.
After considering the prosecution materials and the statutory framework, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Special Court’s order denying anticipatory bail. The judge affirmed that this was not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail, given the prima facie disclosure of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the prosecution materials. The appellants were directed to surrender before the investigation officer in accordance with the law.
The Court’s ruling clarified that when the prosecution record prima facie shows that a person is accused of having committed an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS—being the modern equivalent of the earlier Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code—cannot be granted. The Court’s decision emphasised that the statutory bar in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act extends to exclude the corresponding provision under the BNSS, thereby limiting the scope of anticipatory bail applications in such cases. The appellants were accordingly required to comply with the Special Court’s order and surrender in connection with the ongoing proceedings against them.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.