Facts: The appellants, accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Maharashtra Police Act, appealed against the denial of their pre-arrest bail application. The informant, a Hindu Mahar (Scheduled Caste), alleged that the appellants abused her based on her caste in front of her house, after she married outside her caste. The appellants contended they were falsely implicated and that the informant's FIR was a counterblast to a FIR they had lodged earlier.
Procedural Posture: The appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court, which had rejected their Criminal Bail Application.
Issue: Were the appellants entitled to anticipatory bail, considering the allegations against them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the bar created by Section 18 of the Act, which restricts the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences under the Act?
Holding: No, the appellants were not entitled to anticipatory bail. The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, which held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. if the accused have committed an offence under the Act in public view. The Court found that the incident of abusing the informant in her caste occurred in front of her house in public view. The court noted that the informant belonged to the Hindu Mahar community, a recognized Scheduled Caste. The court also considered the allegations of abuse and intimidation based on caste. The court stated, "I am on the view that, the accused have allegedly been committed the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, therefore, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kiran cited (supra), bar under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is created and the appellants are not entitled to release on anticipatory bail." The court also revoked the interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier and directed the appellants to surrender before the Investigating Officer.