Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2013, decided on April 15, 2013

Disposition

allowed

Judges

A.K Patnaik
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.

Acts

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 18 of the aforesaid Act
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Sections 323, 354, 388 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860
(no specific act/article title mentioned in the excerpt, but 'the aforesaid Act' is referenced)
Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent was accused in Complaint Case No. 38/1 dated 30-7-2010 for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 354, 388 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat (Haryana). On 31-1-2012, the High Court, in Criminal Misc. No. M-17586 of 2011 (Baljinder Singh v. Shakuntla Devi), granted anticipatory bail to the respondent under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complainant challenged that order before the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal and heard the matter, resulting in the present judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court could grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 18 of that Act.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795	Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates an absolute bar to the grant of anticipatory bail unless the court first finds, prima facie, that no offence under the Act is disclosed.	The Supreme Court relied on this case to hold that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail without recording a finding that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act expressly excludes the application of Section 438 CrPC in cases involving offences under the Act. The Court reaffirmed that statutory bar, citing its earlier decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar. It noted that the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent without making any prima facie determination that the allegations did not disclose an offence under the SC/ST Act. Granting bail in the absence of such a finding was contrary to both the statute and binding precedent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order without examining the merits of the underlying allegations.

Holding and Implications

The criminal appeal is allowed; the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent is set aside.

The immediate effect is that the respondent no longer enjoys anticipatory bail protection, and the matter reverts to the position mandated by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The decision does not establish a new legal principle but reinforces the statutory bar and the Court’s earlier ruling in Vilas Pandurang Pawar.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh .

Order

1. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 31-1-2012 passed in Baljinder Singh v. Shakuntla Devi Criminal Misc. No. M-17586 of 2011, the High Court has granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the respondent in Complaint Case No. 38/1 dated 30-7-2010, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 354, 388 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 registered with PS Model Town, Panipat (Haryana).

3. We find that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. This Court has also held in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795, (2012) 8 Scale 577 that Section 18 of the Act creates a specific bar to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person against whom any offence is registered under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and, therefore no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail unless it, prima facie, finds that an offence under the Act is not made out.

4. The High Court has not given any finding in the impugned order Criminal Misc. No. M-17586 of 2011 that an offence under the aforesaid Act is not made out against the respondent and has granted anticipatory bail, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act as well as the aforesaid decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar case (2012) 8 SCC 795, (2012) 8 Scale 577. Hence, without going into the merits of the allegations made against the respondent, we set aside the impugned order (2012) 8 SCC 795, (2012) 8 Scale 577 of the High Court granting bail to the respondent.

5. The criminal appeal is allowed accordingly.

Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh .

Comments