In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed two bail applications while reaffirming the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) to try offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alongside offences under the SC/ST Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, addressed the legal questions surrounding the maintainability of bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) when the accused are not charged under the SC/ST Act but are being tried by Special Courts established under the Act.
Background of the Case
The judgment pertains to two bail applications:
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8192 of 2024: Filed by the applicant Chandra Raj alias Chandra in connection with FIR No. 300 of 2024, registered under Sections 328, 376-D, 506 IPC at Police Station Bachhrawan, District Raebareli. The applicant, initially charged under various IPC sections and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, was later charged solely under the IPC sections after a charge sheet was filed. The Special Court under the SC/ST Act had earlier rejected the applicant’s bail plea.
2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8751 of 2024: Filed by applicants Isha and Shanti in relation to FIR No. 233 of 2024, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya. While additional charges under the SC/ST Act were added to the FIR, the applicants were charged only under IPC provisions. Their bail applications were also dismissed by the Special Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. were maintainable when the accused were not charged under the SC/ST Act but were being tried by a Special Court established under the SC/ST Act.
– Arguments by the Counsel for Applicants:
– Prashant Shukla, representing the applicant Chandra Raj, argued that since the applicants were not charged under the SC/ST Act, their bail applications should be heard and decided by the High Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He cited several precedents, including the case of Pramod vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2447 of 2024), wherein a co-ordinate Bench had allowed such a bail application.
– Anuj Dayal, representing Isha and Shanti, adopted similar arguments, asserting that the Special Court’s jurisdiction is limited to trying offences under the SC/ST Act only and not offences under the IPC.
– Counterarguments by the Counsel for Opposite Parties:
– Vivek Gupta, representing the complainant, and the learned Additional Government Advocate argued that under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the present bail applications were not maintainable under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. They contended that an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act was the only remedy available to the applicants. This argument was supported by the Full Bench decision in Ghulam Rasool Khan vs. State of U.P., which held that an appeal would be the sole recourse against the orders of the Special Court.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, after hearing both parties, dismissed the bail applications and clarified several key legal points:
1. Jurisdiction of Special Courts under SC/ST Act: The court held that Special Courts under the SC/ST Act have the jurisdiction to try offences under the IPC if such offences are connected to those under the SC/ST Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka (2021), which held that unless there is an express provision barring the jurisdiction, the Special Court can try offences under the IPC alongside the special enactment offences.
2. Maintainability of Bail Applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.: The court noted that since the Special Courts are empowered to handle both IPC and SC/ST Act offences jointly, all provisions and restrictions of the SC/ST Act, including Section 14-A(2), would apply. Hence, the applicants must file an appeal, not a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3. Distinguishing from Other Enactments: The court distinguished the SC/ST Act from other special laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which explicitly provide Special Courts the power to try IPC offences. The court emphasized that in the absence of such specific provisions in the SC/ST Act, general principles of law must apply.
4. Quote from the Judgment: “Once the Special Court constituted under the Act is empowered to take cognizance and to try offences together, all the rigors of the SC/ST Act would apply,” stated Justice Bhatia, reinforcing that a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in this context.
Case Details
Case Numbers: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8192 of 2024 and 8751 of 2024
Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
Counsel for Applicants: Prashant Shukla, Mahendra Singh Chaudhary, Anuj Dayal, Reshu Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A. (Government Advocate), Abhinav Srivastava, Vivek Gupta
Parties Involved: Chandra Raj alias Chandra, Isha, Shanti vs. State of U.P.
