The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application said that the Criminal cases in which the accused are not chargesheeted under the SC/ST Act are liable to be processed under the provisions of Cr.P.C, even if the offence is being tried by the special court established under the SC/ST Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Pramod.
By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case at Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura, under Section 302 IPC. The applicant has been in jail since 06.10.2023.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court on 01.12.2023.
In this case, the applicant was charged under Section 302 IPC. Clearly the applicant has not been charge sheeted for any offence under the SC/ST. The case is being tried by the exclusive special court established under the SC/ST Act. The offences under the SC/ST Act are liable to be tried by the exclusive special court defined under Section 2 (bd) of the Act.
The Court said that,
The legislative intent to establish Exclusive Courts was to ensure that trials for offences under the SC/ST Act are expeditiously concluded and the special procedures under the said Act are duly adhered to. The protective provisions of SC/ST Act was created for safeguarding the interests of a defined section of the citizenry.
The Act also lays down certain special procedures for protection of the victims, and for prosecution of the accused. The provisions of grant of bail for accused under the SC/ST Act are distinct from provisions of bail under the CrPC. However, the SC/ST Act is a criminal enactment. The legislation has to be construed strictly, and cannot be applied to offences which do not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST Act. The Special Courts draw their jurisdiction to try offences from Section 2(bd) of the Act. Section 2(bd) of the Act clearly confines the jurisdiction of the Courts to the offences under the SC/ST Act.
Since the applicant has not been charge sheet under the SC/ST Act, the provisions pertaining to the SC/ST Act in regard to the bail shall not be applied to the case of the applicant. Criminal cases in which the accused are not chargesheeted under the SC/ST Act are liable to be processed under the provisions of Cr.P.C, even if the offence is being tried by the special court established under the SC/ST Act.
The following arguments made by Rajeev Kumar, counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Kamlesh Kumar, counsel holding brief of Mrityunjay Singh, counsel on behalf of the informant and Paritosh Kumar Malviya, AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
- The applicant has not been chargesheeted under the SC/ST Act.
- The incident occurred on 28.09.2023. The wife of the deceased who is the first informant was informed by one Manvendra Singh that the body of the deceased was lying at a public place/ animal fare market.
- The inquest was conducted on 29.09.2023 at about 10.30 AM. The postmortem report was drawn up on 29.09.2023 at about 5.35 PM.
- The FIR was lodged on 02.10.2023 by the wife of the deceased.
- Delay in lodgement of the FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.
- The FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and at the instigation of inimical parties in the village.
- There is no direct evidence or eye witness of the incident.
- The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.
- The applicant was not last seen in the company of the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the latter.
- No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant.
- Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.
- The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
- The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the Court allowed the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant- Pramod be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.