- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bachu Das v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant filed a case alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”). On 28-11-2008, the Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, Bihar, examined the complaint, the statements of the complainant and four witnesses, and concluded that a prima facie case was made out against Accused 1-7 (now Respondents 2-8).
Despite this finding, the Patna High Court, by order dated 26-02-2010 and reaffirmed on 05-05-2010 (Criminal Misc. No. 16213 of 2010), granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Supreme Court. After granting leave, the Supreme Court heard all parties and delivered the present order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the bar contained in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused when the complaint discloses a prima facie offence under Section 3(1) of the Act.
- Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail in the face of the Sessions Judge’s finding that a prima facie case existed against the accused.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Complainant)
- Relied on the complaint, witness statements and relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act to contend that a prima facie case is established.
- Invoked Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, asserting that it creates an absolute bar to anticipatory bail where the offence is made out.
- Cited the Supreme Court decision in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795 to reinforce the statutory bar.
State of Bihar
- Supported the appellant’s position that anticipatory bail was impermissible under the SC/ST Act in the circumstances.
Respondents 2-8 (Accused)
- Argued that since the grant of anticipatory bail on 26-02-2010, they had cooperated fully with the investigation and no untoward incident had occurred.
- Highlighted an ongoing land dispute between the parties and claimed that the allegations of caste-based abuse were exaggerated.
- Urged the Court to respect the High Court’s discretionary order and maintain the anticipatory bail.
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 bars anticipatory bail where a complaint discloses a prima facie offence under Section 3(1). | The Supreme Court relied on this decision to hold that the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail once a prima facie offence was made out. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first noted the Sessions Judge’s detailed order of 28-11-2008, which found sufficient material to summon the accused for offences under the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Given this prima facie finding, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act became operative, expressly prohibiting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Invoking the ratio in Vilas Pandurang Pawar, the Court reiterated that a court entertaining an application under Section 438 CrPC must refuse relief if the complaint specifically alleges insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had over-stepped this statutory bar by granting anticipatory bail without first ruling out the applicability of Section 3(1) of the Act.
Finding that the High Court’s approach was inconsistent with both statutory mandate and binding precedent, the Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory bail order.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The order of the Patna High Court granting anticipatory bail to Respondents 2-8 is quashed. The accused are granted four weeks to surrender before the appropriate court and apply for regular bail. The appeal is allowed.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is an absolute bar to anticipatory bail whenever a complaint reveals a prima facie offence under Section 3(1). Trial courts and High Courts must conduct only a prima facie verification, not an elaborate evidentiary analysis, before refusing anticipatory bail in such cases. No new legal principle is created, but the ruling strengthens the statutory protection intended by the SC/ST Act and clarifies that cooperative conduct during the pendency of anticipatory bail cannot override the statutory bar.
Order
1. Heard all the parties concerned. Leave granted. The complainant, aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court dated 5-5-2010 Criminal Misc. No. 16213 of 2010, granting anticipatory bail to Respondents 2 to 8 (Accused 1 to 7), has filed the above appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to the relevant materials, namely, the complaint, the statement of the complainant and four witnesses, as well as the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”), submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail, particularly, in the light of the factual conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, Bihar on 28-11-2008.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the State supported the claim of the appellant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that from the day, namely, 26-2-2010, when the High Court granted anticipatory bail to these persons, no untoward incident had occurred and they cooperated with the investigating officer. He also brought to our notice the earlier order of the High Court dated 26-2-2010, wherein it is mentioned that there is serious land dispute between the parties and use of filthy language by caste name, is unacceptable. Relying on this order, the counsel for the accused submitted that no interference is called for in the order passed by the High Court.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant complainant, in the order dated 28-11-2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, after taking note of all the materials, has concluded as under:
“Having considered the submissions urged at the Bar, going through the impugned order and LCR and finding that the learned Magistrate after perusal of the complaint petition, statement of the complainant and of the four witnesses examined during enquiry has come to the conclusion that against the accused persons offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/448 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out which appears quite legal, proper and correct one. At this stage the Magistrate is required only to see as to whether on the basis of the materials available on the record prima facie case is made out or not? I have also perused the materials placed on the record and the Court is of the opinion that against the accused persons prima facie case as found by the learned Magistrate is made out and the accused persons have rightly been summoned. In the result finding no merit in this criminal revision the same is hereby dismissed.”
6. It is clear that the learned Magistrate carefully perused the complaint petition, as well as the statement of the complainant and four witnesses examined during enquiry and arrived at a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons that the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, is made out. In such circumstance and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 795, submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail. In similar circumstance, this Court has considered the offence under Section 3(1), as well as the bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and concluded as under:
“9. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
10. 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, 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.”
7. In the light of the factual details, as found in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, dated 28-11-2008, and in the light of the statutory provision as interpreted by this Court in the abovecited decision, we are satisfied that the High Court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. Respondents 2 to 8-accused are granted four weeks' time from today to surrender before the appropriate court and seek for regular bail.
8. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of their claim and it is open to the respondent-accused to put forth their stand, including their claim that during the interregnum period, namely, 26-2-2010, the date on which the High Court has granted the anticipatory bail and till today, no untoward incident had occurred at their instance.
9. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed.
Alert