Kalawati Devi And anr vs State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. S. K. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Usha Kumari, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State via video

conferencing.

The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the

Act’) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA), Begusarai in

ABP No. 518 of 2020 whereby he has rejected the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the appellants in connection with Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S.

Case No.40 of 2020 registered inter alia under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) (w) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.

Learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail of the appellants in view of the provisions prescribed under Section 18 of

the Act. Section 18 of the Act mandates that an application for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case

of offences under the Act would not be maintainable.

A perusal of the first information report would demonstrate that the appellants along with three others abused the informant and her mother by

taking their caste name and assaulted them as a result of which the mother of the informant died.

Mr. S. K. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the specific allegation of assault upon the deceased is made against co-accused

Dharmendra Chaudhary and Chandan Kumar and there is no injury report of the informant. He further contended that though there is general and

omnibus allegation that the accused persons abused the informant and her mother by taking their caste name, there is no specific allegation of abusing

the informant or her mother against the appellants.

On the other hand, Mrs. Usha Kumari, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that apart from the offence being under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, there is also allegation of abusing the informant and her mother. Hence, offence under the Act would clearly be

attracted. Thus, an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable. She further contended that there is no

illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the learned Special Judge.

Having heard the parties and perused the material on record, I find no error in the order impugned passed by the court below. It has rightly refused

to grant pre-arrest bail to the appellants on the ground of its maintainability in view of bar created by Section 18 of the Act.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

In case, the appellants surrender and seek bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced in any manner by this

judgment.