The Kerala High Court in Abbas R.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. rejected the application for anticipatory bail as the applicant has threatened the mother of the victim.
Three questions arose before the Court in this appeal:-
Whether grant of anticipatory bail is specifically barred in cases involving commission of offences under the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
Is relaxation to Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act is permissible? If so, to what extent?
How the word `knowing' in Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act to be understood?
It was observed that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person or accusation of an offence committed under this Act. The Court also relied upon Vilas Pandurang Pawar & anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors wherein the Supreme Court held thus:-
“The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, the scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail Under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.”
It further held that “Reading Section 3(2)(va) it is emphatically clear that commission of offences specified in the schedule would attract an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. In order to attract the said offence, commission of the offences punishable under the I.P.C, shown in the schedule, should be committed by the accused against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe "knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe".
The Court concluded by observing thus:
“To summarise, in the present case, the knowledge of the accused as to the status of the defacto complainant as a member of the Scheduled Tribe community could very well be inferred prima facie from the prosecution materials. Therefore, prima facie commission of offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act is made out. Thus, in this case Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act would apply and therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.”