Karnataka High Court
Bapu Gouda And Another vs State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ1117, ILR1995KAR3586, 1996(1)KARLJ111
ORDER
1. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 149/95 registered in Shahapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). They have filed this petition under Section 438 Cri P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia, , has held that the offences which are enumerated under Section 3(1) of the Act arise out of the practice of "Untouchability". It is in this context that certain special provisions have been made in the Act, including Section 18. The exclusion of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Connection with offences under the said Act has to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions which give rise to such offence, and the appreshension that perpetrators of such artoricties are likely to threaten and intimdate their victims and prevent or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail.
3. Referring to the statement of objects and reasons the Court held that the above statement graphically describes the social conditions which motivated the said legislation. It is pointed out in the above Statement of Objects and Reasons that when members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection, vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. In these circumstances, if anticipatory bail is not made available to persons who commit such offences, such a denial cannot be considered as unreasonable or violative of Article 14, as these offences form a distinct class by themselves and cannot be compared with other offences.
4. The Court further held that looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a Court of Session or the High Court. Also anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The offences enumerated under the present case are very different from those under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. However, looking to the historical background relating to the practice of "Untouchability" and the social attitudes which lead to the commission of such offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is justification for an apprehension that if the benefit of anticipatory bail is made available to the persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent a proper investigation. It is in this context that Section 18 has been incorporated in the Act.
5. The Court further held that the offences which are enumberated under Section 3 are offences which, to say the least, denigrate members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the eyes of society, and prevent them from leading a life of dignity and self-respect. Such offences are committed to humiliate and sub-jugate members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with a view to keeping them in a state of servitude. These offences constitute a separate class and cannot be compared with offences under the Penal Code.
6. The Court also held that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not available to persons committing offences under Section 3(1) of the Act.
7. Admittedly in this case, the police have registered the case under Section 3 of the Act against the petitioners in addition to the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.