Chattisgarh High Court
Neeraj Jagatramka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 February, 2022
CRA 1104/2021
-1-
AFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1104 of 2021
Judgment reserved on 17.01.2022
Judgment delivered on 07.02.2022
• Neeraj Jagatramka S/o Late Shri Brajbhushan Jagatramka,
Aged About 45 Years, Occupation- Business, R/o H.No. 57,
Vrindavan Colony, Bhagwanpur, Police Station Kotra Road,
Raigarh, C.G.
------Appellant
VERSUS
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station AJK Raigarh (City Kotwali, Raigarh) Tahsil and District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
-------Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate
Complainant : appeared through virtual mode
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
(proceedings through video conferencing)
C.A.V. Order
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short "Act of 1989") for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Registry upon filing of this appeal pointed out default that the
criminal appeal filed under the provisions of Section 14A(2) of the
Act of 1989 by appellant has already been decided vide order
dated 11.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 642/2021. Learned
State counsel also, at the time of hearing of application, raised
objection that when once appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of
the Act of 1989 which was already disposed of, another criminal
appeal would not lie.
CRA 1104/2021
-2-
3. Today this appeal is taken up for hearing for considering the
objection that filing of another appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Act of 1989 with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail would be
maintainable or not and if it is maintainable, to consider it on
merits.
4. Appellant, filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act of
1989 seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in crime
bearing No. 261/2020, registered at police station AJK Raigarh
(city kotwali, Raigarh) for commission of offence under Sections
186, 294, 353 of IPC including the offence under Section 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989.
5. Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, learned counsel for appellant would submit,
that default as pointed out by the Registry with regard to filing of
another appeal after disposal of appeal filed earlier is not proper.
Appellant earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory
bail in an appeal bearing CRA No. 642/2021 which was disposed
of vide order dated 11.08.2021. Learned counsel referring to
provisions of Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 would submit that
under this provision any order passed by a Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail is made
appealable. Provision of Section 14A of the Act of 1989 is
inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016. For grant of bail
either anticipatory or regular bail, applications, before the Special
Court, are to be filed under Section 438 or Section 439 of CrPC.
Under the Act of 1989, there is no specific provision to file
application for grant of bail before the Special Court or Exclusive
Special Court. He contended that repeated bail applications
under Section 438 and Section 439 of CrPC are not barred.
CRA 1104/2021
-3-
Person apprehending his arrest if filed an application for
anticipatory bail under the provision of Section 438 of CrPC can
repeat the prayer for grant of bail before the same Court on
changed circumstances and similarly under the provisions of
Section 439 of CrPC also the person arrested in any of the crime
can repeat the prayer for grant of bail projecting the changed
circumstances, if his earlier bail application is rejected. He placed
reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rani Dudeja vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 13 SCC
555 and submits that in this judgment it is held that principle of
res judicata could not be operated in an application for bail.
Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench
of Madhya Pradhesh High Court in case of Imratlal
Vishwakarma and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (1996) M.P.L.J. 662; Ramu @ Ramlal v. State of
M.P reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 2078 and would submit
that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh also held that there is no
statutory prohibition contained in Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) barring ` application/ petition under Section 438 and
applying the same analogy when the appellant approaches the
High Court seeking relief of bail either anticipatory or regular bail
under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989, there cannot be any bar
of filing another appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989.
Hence, the default as pointed out by the Registry as also the
objection raised on the part of State counsel is not sustainable.
6. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned State counsel opposes the
submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit
that as the appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989
CRA 1104/2021
-4-
which is a special Act, under the provisions of this Act there is no
specific provision of filing another appeal even for relief of bail,
hence this appeal would not be maintainable.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. For considering the submissions of maintainability of this appeal
in its form, before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to
extract the provisions of Section 14A of the Act of 1989 which
reads as under:
"14A. Appeals.- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall
lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not
being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court
or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High
Court both on facts and on law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (3) of section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an
appeal shall lie to the High Court against an
order of the Special Court or the Exclusive
Special Court granting or refusing bail.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, every
appeal under this section shall be preferred
within a period of ninety days from the date of
the judgment, sentence or order appealed
from:
Provided that the High Court may
entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said
period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the
appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within the period of ninety days."
9. Facts
of the case are, that the appellant apprehending his arrest
in Crime No. 261/2020 approached the Special Court (Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribe, Prevention of Atrocities, Act),
Raigarh, by way of filing an application under Section 438 of
CRA 1104/2021
CrPC which came to be dismissed on 17.04.2020. Thereafter,
appellant filed an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989
bearing number CRA No. 642/2021 which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 11.08.2021. Bail under the provisions of Act of
1989 is not specifically defined or envisaged. Section 20 of the
Act of 1989 mentions Act to override other laws and reads as
under:
"20. Act to override other laws.- Save as
otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of
this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any other law for the time being in force or any
custom or usage or any instrument having
effect by virtue of any such law."
10. Overriding of the Act is with respect to only with the inconsistent
provision therewith contained in any other law. Section 18 of the
Act of 1989 very specifically mentions that Section 438 of CrPC
not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act of
1989 and there is specific bar with regard to maintainability of
anticipatory bail applications. Referring to Section 18 of the Act of
1989, here is to take note of the intent of law makers, where they
have incorporated the provision of not application of certain
provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, there is no bar of repeating the prayer for
grant of bail if the first application is dismissed. In the Act of 1989,
there is no specific bar in filing repeat appeal with prayer for grant
of bail.
11. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in cases of Imratlal
Vishwakarma (supra), Ramu @ Ramlal (supra) and Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rani Dudeja (supra) has held that there is no
CRA 1104/2021
bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the res
judicata cannot apply to the bail applications. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in other judgment has also held that the prayer for bail can
be repeated only if there is change in circumstances. Hence, in
view of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, repeated prayer for
grant of bail is not barred under the law. Though this appeal is
filed under Section 14A(2) of the Act of 1989 is with a prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail then the similar analogy as applicable to
applications under Section 438 and Section 439 of CrPC will also
apply otherwise application for grant of bail to the appellant who
is facing trial or apprehending his arrest for commission of crime
under the Act of 1989, after rejection of his application for grant of
bail at one point of time will have to remain in custody till final
disposal of trial or even in changed circumstances could not
repeat prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, which could not be the
intent of Act of 1989.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh and others v.
State of U.P. reported in 1978 Cri.L.J. 651(1) while considering
second application after rejection of its earlier application has
held that the order refusing application for bail does not
necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more
materials, further developments and different considerations. It
was also held that Court is not barred from second consideration
at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive
adjudication and updated reconsideration is not overturning an
earlier negation and second application was entertained.
13. From the aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
clear that the law does not prevent second consideration of an
CRA 1104/2021
application of bail on rejection of first one, earlier rejection is not
conclusive. When applying similar analogy for considering bail
applications under the Act of 1989 and also keeping in mind
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for 'no
person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except by
due process of law', the law of bail is also an integral part of
Article 21 of Constitution of India, hence, the default pointed out
is not sustainable.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that subsequent
appeal under Section 14A(2) of CrPC seeking bail after rejection
of first bail application is maintainable.
15. Sofar as, the merits of the appeal are concerned, while
considering the appeal bearing CRA No. 642/2021 filed by
appellant seeking prayer for anticipatory bail, when this Court
considering the allegations levelled against appellant and the
material available in the case diary expressed its view that in view
of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, application for grant of
anticipatory bail is not maintainable, learned counsel appearing
therein at that relevant point of time after arguing the bail
application at length on merits, sought permission of this Court to
withdraw the appeal. He sought further direction for considering
application for grant of regular bail if filed after his surrender to be
decided on same day. Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, counsel for appellant
could not able to point out any change in circumstances for
entertaining second appeal for grant of anticipatory bail, except,
that appellant is handicapped. As this Court considering the
material available in the case diary was of the view that
application for anticipatory bail before the Court below as also the
CRA 1104/2021
appeal seeking prayer for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in
view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 in view of
statement of complainant, witnesses and other material available
in case diary which also exists today, I do not find any new
ground or changed circumstances. The appeal is devoid of merit.
16. In view of above observation, appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Pawan
