Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State Of Maharashtra

CASE NUMBER

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6432 Of 2012

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS

(2012) 8 SCC 795, AIR 2012 SC 3316.

BENCH

P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi.

DECIDED ON

September 12, 2012

RELEVANT ACT/ SECTION

  • The Salt Cess Act, 1953.
  • Section 438 in the Indian Penal Code.
  • The Indian Penal Code.
  • The Special Courts Act, 1979.
  • Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
  • The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
  • Section 438 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this case, the complainant was of a lower caste. She lived with her family. On 15.06.2012 they allowed the rain water accumulated in their field to flow to the field of the petitioner. The petitioner then abused on their caste and then assaulted her whole family by using stones, sticks, etc., the reason being that the complainant allowed the rain water to flow on their field. The complainant then on the same day filed an FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner along with the other accused members filed an anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected their application for anticipatory bail. Then the petitioners moved the anticipatory bail to the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the anticipatory bail to 13 accused out of 15. The two petitioners moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. And the SC also rejected the application for anticipatory bail.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The main issue was that whether an accused charged with various offences under the IPC along with the provisions of the SC/ST Act is entitled for anticipatory bail (also called as pre-arrest bail) under Section 438 of the CrPC or not.

RATIO OF THE CASE

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rejected the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners because the Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar over Section 438 of CrPC that denies the anticipatory bail for the person against whom the allegations has been filed under this Act and therefore no court can entertain such applications for anticipatory bail unless, the court prima facie finds that the offence made under the SC/ST Act is not made out.

DECISION OF THE COURT

The anticipatory bail is not maintainable in the cases of the offence committed under SC/ST Act as there is a bar under section 18 of this Act. Therefore the Hon’ble SC has held that the petitioners have committed the offence under SC/ST Act, and hence they are not entitled for release on pre-arrest bail.

The case analysis has been done by Priyanka Choudhary, currently pursuing BALLB from Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

Latest Posts


Archives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *