Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (2.29 seconds)Section 18A in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 March, 2018
9. However, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it cannot be said that police have not acted
diligently in investigating into the crime and in not arresting the
fifth respondent. Thus, it is premature for this Court, at this
stage, to hold the action of respondent-police in not arresting fifth
6
(2020)4 SCC 727
PNR,J
Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2019
No. 228 of 2018 decided on 1-10-2019 [Union of
India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761] .
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
Concerning the question of arrest, in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v.
State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] this Court
has considered the safeguard in respect of arrest of an accused
person. This Court affirmed the principle that arrest cannot be
made routinely on the mere allegation of commission of an offence.
The question arises as to justification to create a special
dispensation applicable only to complaints under the Atrocities Act
because of safeguards applicable generally.
Section 18 in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
State Of M.P. & Anr vs Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr on 6 February, 1995
57. The guidelines in paras 79.3 and 79.4 appear to have been
issued in view of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the 1989
Act; whereas adequate safeguards have been provided by a
purposive interpretation by this Court in State of M.P. v. Ram
Kishna Balothia [State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC
221 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 439] . The consistent view of this Court that if
prima facie case has not been made out attracting the provisions of
the SC/ST Act of 1989 in that case, the bar created under Section
18 on the grant of anticipatory bail is not attracted. Thus, misuse of
the provisions of the Act is intended to be taken care of by the
decision above.