Patna High Court
Raziul Islam Khan @ Rajiul Islam ... vs The State Of Bihar on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4792 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2016 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Suman Mahto
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3387 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Mistri and Ors
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4574 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3643 Year-2016 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE
District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Mrityunjay Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 992 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2016 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran
======================================================
Anil Kumar Singh and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1208 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Mohan Yadav and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2836 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2018 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Usha Devi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2886 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
Shashi Kant Lal
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2938 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1089 Year-2013 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
District- Khagaria
======================================================
Awadesh Singh
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3166 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2016 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
Yashoda Devi and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3287 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
PRAMILA PURVE and ANR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3360 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-1993 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Nagendra Ram
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3404 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sarvajit
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3458 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2012 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ram Bilash Rai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3505 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Begusarai
======================================================
RAGHBENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ RAGHWENDRA PRASAD SINGH
and ORS
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3629 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas
======================================================
Madan Choubey @ Madan Mohan Choubey
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3701 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2010 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar Deo
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3764 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2017 Thana- BARABAR TOURIST District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Md. Basir Alam @ Basir Alam
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3796 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-661 Year-2016 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C
District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Nageshwar Upadhyay @ Rameshwar Upadhyay and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3878 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-497 Year-2016 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sarvajeet Nipun @ Jiwacch Pandey and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3941 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2018 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
DURAG SINGH RAJPUROHIT
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3960 of 2018
In
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2310 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-856 Year-2015 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through Commissioner Tirhut Division, Mizaffarpur and
Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4044 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2015 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
======================================================
Rameshwar Sah @ Rameshwar Prasad @ Rameshwar Prasad Sah
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR and ANR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4093 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2007 Thana- GHOSWARI District- Patna
======================================================
LOKI MAHTO and ORS
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4110 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-432 Year-2009 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Subhash Rajak
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4111 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST BAGHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Nasim Akhtar and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4134 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
MAHANT VEER RAGHAV PRAPANNA RAMANUJ DAS @
RAMCHANDRA SHARMA @ MAHANT VEER RAGHAV @ MAHANTH
VEER RAG
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4191 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Nalanda
======================================================
Shiv Kumar Prasad @ Shiv Kumar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4223 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34769 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-563 Year-2009 Thana- SC/ST District- Vaishali
======================================================
Panna Devi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4281 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13865 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Raman Kumar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4294 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41396 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Khagaria
======================================================
Shyam Sarraf and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4394 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2016 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa
======================================================
Brahmdev Singh @ Brahma Dev Singh and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4401 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49984 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2014 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
======================================================
Garju Gond
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4410 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2018 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Maha Rai @ Mahanand Rai and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4485 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8984 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2012 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Thakur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4487 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58375 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2012 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Dr. Sunita Kumari
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4488 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11703 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2014 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE
District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Rupak Kumar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4502 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2016 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Ran Vijay Kumar and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4567 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2010 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
Amarendra Kumar Singh @ Dadan Singh and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4588 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50515 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-944 Year-2013 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Raj Kumari Devi and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4640 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-396 Year-2018 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Jagdeo Das and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4823 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2018 Thana- KHUSRUPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4847 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55048 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas
======================================================
Shakil Ahamad @ Shakil Ahmed
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 12 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Shabbir Mohamood @ shabbir Hussain and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 55 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3697 Year-2013 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Brijnandan Prasad
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 56 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2013 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Nand Kishore Singh @ nand kishoe singh and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 61 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2018 Thana- SC/ST District- Buxar
======================================================
Bithal Nath Tripathi @ Dr. Vithal Nath Tripathi and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 189 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2016 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna
======================================================
Upkar Pritam Kumar Santoshi and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
The State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 233 of 2019
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54130 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2016 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Nakul Singh and Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 245 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Dr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava @ Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Anr
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 255 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Siwan
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Singh
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Anr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 535 of 2019
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4128 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
MAHANTH RAM MOHAN DAS @ RAM MOHAN DAS CHELE WARIS
LATE MAHANTH RAM SUNDAR DAS,
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 615 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2017 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
MD. SHAKIL @ SHAKIL AHMAD AND ORS.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 835 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2018 Thana- SC/ST District- Kishanganj
======================================================
ANUJ KUMAR SINHA @ CHINTU KUMAR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar AND ANR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 999 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
UMAKANT VERMA
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1062 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-432 Year-2017 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
======================================================
JANARDHAN SWARNKAR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1170 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2017 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani
======================================================
SWARAJ BEHARI CHOUDHARY @ SWARAJY BEHARI CHOUDHARY
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1428 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2017 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
ASHOK RAI @ ASHOK KUMAR RAI
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1462 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2017 Thana- MORO District- Darbhanga
======================================================
SHAHID HUSSAIN @ MISTER
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1513 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2018 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
NIRMAL KUMAR BUBNA @ NIRMAL BUBNA @ NIRMAL BABUNA
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1550 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-486 Year-2013 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
YOGENDRA SINGH
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1595 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2018 Thana- CHANDAN District- Banka
======================================================
RAMESH ROY @ RAMESH RAI
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1691 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2014 Thana- SC/ST District- Khagaria
======================================================
JITENDRA KUMAR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1758 of 2019
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.177 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2014 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
======================================================
UDAY YADAV
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1987 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Darbhanga
======================================================
RAZIUL ISLAM KHAN @ RAJIUL ISLAM KHAN
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2018 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2013 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
SUBHASH PRASAD
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2043 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas
======================================================
SHRIDHAR MISHRA @ MUNNA MISHRA
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2046 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2018 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY @ SUNIL DUBEY
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2219 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2014 Thana- SIKTI District- Araria
======================================================
RANJEET JHA @ SANJEET
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2229 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Banka
======================================================
SATISH KUMAR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2756 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2011 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
SHAMBHU KUMAR CHAUDHARY @ SHAMBHU KUMAR PRINCE
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3076 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
RAJESH JAIN
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4792 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shiv Kumar Dwivedy, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3387 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Uday Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4574 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Soni Shrivastava, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 992 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1208 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2836 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2886 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Digvijay Narayan Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2938 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3166 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Raghav Prasad No.-1, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3287 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3360 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ratan Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3404 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3458 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3505 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Randhir Kumar No-1, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3629 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3701 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3764 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3796 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3878 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Anand, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3941 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Saket Tiwary, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3960 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Nasrul Huda Khan , SC1
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4044 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shyam Kishor Das, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4093 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anil Kumar No.1, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan,APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4110 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4111 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Kr Singh No. 1, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4134 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4191 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4223 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Madhurendra Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4281 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Manoj, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4294 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Raj Dular Sah, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan,APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4394 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Madhav Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4401 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4410 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4485 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajkumar Rajesh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Surendra Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4487 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajkumar Rajesh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ram Shankar Das, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4488 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar,, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4502 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4567 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dinesh Maharaj, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4588 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Prafull Chandra Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4640 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Karn, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4823 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Raj Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna,APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4847 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 12 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Devendra Prasad Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 55 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 56 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Karn, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 61 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Devi Das Srivastava, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 189 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Anand, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna,APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 233 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 245 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Girish Chandra Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 255 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anita Kumari, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 535 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Jha, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 615 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 835 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 999 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Siddharth Harsh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1062 of 2019)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Prakash Chandra Gupta, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1170 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rana Bhupendra Narayan Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1428 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1462 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Zeyaul Hoda, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1513 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nilesh Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1550 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Milind Kumar Mishra, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1595 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amar Nath Deo, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1691 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1758 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1987 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna,APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2018 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2043 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranvijay Narain Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2046 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Usha Kumari 1, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2219 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mrigendra Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2229 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajay Mukherjee, Adv
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2756 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Harendra Prasad, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3076 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajeev Shekhar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH)
Date : 09-08-2023
Precisely narrated, the questions as regards, the ambit,
scope and the limitations of Section 14A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short), are involved
in the present reference to the Division Bench made by a
learned single-Judge of this Court by an order dated 08.04.2019,
passed in the present batch of cases. In paragraph no. 2 of the
Reference Order, the learned single-Judge has expressed
disagreement with the view taken by a co-ordinate bench of a
learned single-Judge. The order of Reference, however, missed
to refer to the exact decision of the co-ordinate bench of learned
single-Judge of this court with which learned Judge was not in
agreement. Learned single-Judge in his concluding paragraphs
of the Reference Order has noted as under:-
"19. Similar issue was subject to consideration by the
Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Criminal Writ
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
(Public Interest Litigation) No.08 of 2018 with
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38755 of 2017 Satyendra
and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh with Criminal
Writ (Public Interest Litigation) No.11 of 2018,
Vishnu Behari Tiwari v. Union of India and others
reported in 2018 CRI.L.J. 5010 and during
consideration of the same, the Full Bench on its own
framed, the following points for adjudication:-
A. Whether provisions of sub-section (2) of Section
14-A and the second proviso to sub-section (3) of
Section 14-A of the Amending Act, are violative
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, being
unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary?
B. Whether in view of the provisions contained in
Section 14-A of the Amending Act, a petition
under the provisions of Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India or a revision under Section
397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.) or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
is maintainable. OR in other words, whether by
virtue of Section 14-A of the Amending Act, the
powers of the High Court under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution or its revisional powers or the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand ousted?
C. Whether the amended provisions of Section 14-A
would apply to offences or proceedings initiated
or pending prior to 26 January 2016?
D. Whether upon the expiry of the period of
limitation for filing of an appeal as specified in
the second proviso to Section 14-A (3), Section
439 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred on the
High Court in terms thereof would stand revived?
E. Whether the power to directly take cognizance of
offences shall be exercisable by the existing
Special Courts other then the Exclusive Special
Courts or Special Courts to be specified under
the amended Section 14?"
And answered one by one by concluding under Para-
115 as follows:-
"115. In light of the above discussion, our answer to
the Questions formulated are as follows:
A. Whether provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 14A and
the second proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 14A of the
Amending Act, are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution, being unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary?
While we reject the challenge to section 14-A (2), we
declare that the second proviso to Section 14A (3) is clearly
violative of both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
not just manifestly arbitrary, it has the direct and
unhindered effect of taking away the salutary right of a first
appeal which has been recognised to be an integral facet of
fair procedure enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The absence of discretion in the Court to consider
condonation of delay even where sufficient cause may exist
renders the measure wholly capricious, irrational and
excessive. It is consequently struck down.
B. Whether in view of the provisions contained in Section
14A of the Amending Act, a petition under the provisions of
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India or a revision
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is maintainable. OR in
other words, whether by virtue of Section 14A of the
Amending Act, the powers of the High Court under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution or its revisional powers or the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand ousted ?
We therefore answer Question (B) by holding that while the
constitutional and inherent powers of this Court are not
"ousted" by Section 14A, they cannot be invoked in cases
and situations where an appeal would lie under Section
14A. Insofar as the powers of the Court with respect to the
revisional jurisdiction is concerned, we find that the
provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. stand impliedly excluded
by virtue of the special provisions made in Section 14A.
This, we hold also in light of our finding that the word
"order" as occurring in subsection(1) of Section 14A would
also include intermediate orders.
C. Whether the amended provisions of Section 14-A would
apply to offences or proceedings initiated or pending prior
to 26 January 2016?
We hold that the provisions of Section 14A would be
applicable to all judgments, sentences or orders as well as
orders granting or refusing bail passed or pronounced after
26 January, 2016. We further clarify that the introduction of
this provision would not effect proceedings instituted or
pending before this Court provided they relate to a
judgment, sentence or order passed prior to 26 January
2016. The applicability of Section 14A does not depend
upon the date of commission of the offence. The
determinative factor would be the date of the order of the
Special Court or Exclusive Court.
D. Whether upon the expiry of the period of limitation for
filing of an appeal as specified in the second proviso to
Section 14A (3), Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the powers
conferred on the High Court in terms thereof would stand
revived ?
We hold that the powers conferred on the High Court under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. do not stand revived. We find ourselves
unable to sustain the line of reasoning adopted by the
learned Judge in Rohit that the provisions of Section 439
Cr.P.C. would remain in suspension during the period of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
180 days and thereafter revive on its expiry. The conclusion
so arrived at cannot be sustained on any known principle of
statutory interpretation. We are therefore, constrained to
hold that both Janardan Pandey as well as Rohit do not lay
down the correct law and must, as we do, stand overruled.
E. Whether the power to directly take cognizance of
offences shall be exercisable by the existing Special Courts
other than the Exclusive Special Courts or Special Courts
to be specified under the amended Section 14?"
The existing Special Courts do not have the jurisdiction to
directly take cognisance of offences under the 1989 Act.
This power stands conferred only upon the Exclusive
Special Courts to be established or the Special Courts to be
specified in terms of the substituted section 14. However it
is clarified that the substitution of Section 14 by the
Amending Act does not have the effect of denuding the
existing Special Courts of the authority to exercise
jurisdiction in respect of proceedings under the 1989 Act.
They would merely not have the power to directly take
cognizance of offences and would be bound by the rigours
of Section 193 Cr.P.C. Even if cognizance has been taken by
the existing Special Courts directly in light of the
uncertainty which prevailed, this would not ipso facto
render the proceedings void ab initio. Ultimately it would
be for the objector to establish serious prejudice or a
miscarriage of justice as held in Rati Ram (AIR 2012 SC
1485)."
20. Because of the fact that during course of
consideration of aforesaid legal jugglery, the virus of
Section 14A of the Act along with other relevant Sections
would also be the major issue apart from difference of
opinion as indicated above, therefore, the matter is required
to be considered properly by the Division Bench and for
that, questionnaire has been framed under Para-1 coupled
with Para-19, and for that, office is directed to place before
the Division Bench after taking permission from Hon'ble
the Chief Justice."
2. We deem it proper, in that background, to reproduce
in verbatim paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the order of Reference
dated 08.04.2019:-
"1. Apart from other subject, as per roster, the Criminal
Appeal arising out of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (Short as Act) have also been assigned excluding
the bail matters. When the respective file has been gone
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
through in consonance with the submission having at
the end of the learned respective counsels, some of the
records even divulge an incidence of conversion from
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition purported to be under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Criminal Appeal under waled of
Section 14-A of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. A query has been made whether the prayer
(detailed hereinafter) would really attract its
adjudication under Criminal Appeal exclusively under
the guise of Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. The nature of prayer, which has been
made and perceived relating to different memo of
appeal, so far relevant to the present episode is as
follows:-
1) Quashing of the prosecution
2) Quashing of the order of the cognizance
3) Quashing of the charge/ Rejection of prayer of
discharge
4) Refusal of prayer under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
5) Refusal of prayer/ allow of prayer under Section 319
of the Cr.P.C.
6) Consideration of Delay in filing Appeal, provision
for Condonation of Limitation.
2. With great respect to the learned Co-
ordinate Bench, I did not carry the same view. As per
direction given by the Apex Court in Om Prakash
Agarwal Since Deceased Thr. LRS and others v.
Vishan Dayal Rajpoot and another reported in A.I.R.
2018 SC 5486, observing that whenever there happens to
be difference of opinion amongst Co-ordinate Bench, the
matter is to be referred to Larger Bench. On that score
alone, would have come up before the Division Bench.
However, I am inclined to record the reasons, though,
summarily, as I do not want to make the reference
cumbersome, as after all, on reference the Division
Bench has to answer. So, only relevant points are being
sketched."
3. When the order of Reference dated 08.04.2019
came to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, before
directing the matters to be placed before a Division Bench, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
then Hon'ble Chief Justice ordered for placing the papers of
these matters before a Division Bench for resolving the
controversy by an order dated 11.04.2019, with the following
remarks:-
"Registrar (List)
I have perused the order of reference dated 8th
April, 2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4792 of 2018 and
other analogous cases, whereunder the learned Single Judge
has made a request for referring the matter to be resolved
by a Division Bench, which in his Lordship's opinion
relates to the difference of opinion as expressed in the
order.
In Paragraph 2 of the order, the learned Single
Judge has expressed his difference of opinion with a
coordinate Bench, but the reference of the judgment with
which the learned Single Judge has differed does not appear
to have been specifically indicated.
On a study, I find that the learned Single Judge
has also expressed his doubt about the status of a bail order
being an interlocutory order and the third area of the issue
to be resolved, as indicated in the order, is with regard to
the vires of Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The two judgments that have been delivered by
a learned Single Judge of this Court on the issue relating to
the point of difference, as indicated, appears to be in the
case of Suman Thakur @ Mritunjay Suman & Anr. Vs. The
State of Bihar [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 591 of 2016 along with
another appeal vide judgment dated 14th September, 2016].
A copy of the said judgment is placed on record for
reference. The other judgment which appears to be the
cause for conflict of opinion is in the case of Bisheshwar
Mishra and another Vs. The State of Bihar [Cr.Misc. No.
25276 of 2016, decided on 27th October, 2016 along with
analogous cases]. A copy of the said judgment is also
placed on record for reference.
Another decision as to the distinction between
an interlocutory order, an intermediary order and a final
order has also been considered in a Full Bench decision of
the Allahabad High Court in the case of Munna Singh @
Shivaji Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [Cr. Revision
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
No. 4414 of 2004 decided on 11th October, 2011.
The third area of difference, as indicated by the
learned Single Judge, appears to be in relation to the vires
of Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 where the learned Single Judge has referred to a Full
Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Vishnu Behari Tewari & Ors. vs. Union of India, reported
in 2018 Criminal Law Journal 5010. In this regard, I have
come across the order passed by the Apex Court while
entertaining an appeal against the aforesaid judgment in the
case of Vishnu Behari Tewari (supra) in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 544 of 2019 where the following order
was passed on 25.01.2019:
"Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the relevant material.
Issue notice.
Issue notice also on the prayer of
interim relief insofar as the order of the High Court
with regard to proviso to Section 14A(1) and
14A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Amendment) Act, 2015 is concerned."
It is in the aforesaid context that the matter has
to be resolved subject to the opinion that may be formed by
the Bench keeping in view the referring order dated
08.04.2019.
Accordingly, let the papers of this Cr. Appeal
be placed before a Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Birendra Kumar for resolving the controversy at the
earliest.
Registrar (List) may obtain the consent of the
Hon'ble Judges for fixing a date in the matter and list it
accordingly."
4. These matters came to be subsequently listed
before this Bench and the questions arising out of the
interpretation of Section 14A of the Act are being answered
accordingly by the present judgment.
5. As interpretation of Section 14A of the 'Act' is at
the core of the issue, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
-
"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:
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained
after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty
days.
(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall,
as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three
months from the date of admission of the appeal."
6. There are four sub-Sections in Section 14A of the
Act, Sub-Section (3) of which has two provisos, which we shall
be dealing with point-wise. Sub-section (1) of Section 14A of
the Act begins with a non obstante clause and states clearly that
an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not
being any interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive
Special Court to the High Court, both on the facts and on the
law. It is noteworthy that Section 14(1) of the Act mandates the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
State Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of
the High Court, to establish an Exclusive Special Court for one
or more districts by notification in official gazette for the
purpose of providing speedy trial. The first proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 14 stipulates that in such districts, where
less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State
Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of
the High Court, specify for such districts, the court of Sessions
to be a Special Courts by notification in the official gazette to
try the offences under the Act. The second proviso to Section
14(1) of the Act is significant which provides that the Courts, so
established under Section 14 or specified, shall have power to
directly take cognizance of the offences punishable under the
Act. Thus, in view of the second proviso to Section 14(1) of the
Act, the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court has power
to take cognizance.
7. Reverting back to sub-Section (1) of Section 14A
of the Act, it is manifest from a plain reading that an appeal lies
to the High Court both on facts and on law from any judgment,
sentence or order not being an "interlocutory order". Whether an
order taking cognizance of an offence passed by an Exclusive
Special Court or Special Court in an interlocutory order or not,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
is one of the issues which has been vehemently thrashed by the
members of the Bar in the present batch of cases.
8. In order to address the issue, we deem it
beneficial to notice Section 397 of Cr.P.C. which vests
revisional powers in the High court and Sessions Judge
excluding in relation to any 'interlocutory order' (underscored
for emphasis) passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other
proceedings to sub-section 2 of section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
9. What is the connotation of the term
'interlocutory order' appearing in sub-section (2) of Section
397 of the Cr.P.C., had fallen for determination before the
Supreme Court also in the oft quoted decision in the case of
Amar Nath and Ors Vs. the State of Haryana and Anr reported
in (1977) 4 SCC 137. The Supreme Court in the case of Amar
Nath (supra) noticed that concept of interlocutory order qua
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was completely foreign
to the earlier code, i.e., the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
which was subsequently amended by incorporating a provision
in the nature of a sub-section with the avowed purpose of
cutting out delays and ensuring that the accused persons get a
fair trial without much delay and the procedure was not made
complicated. The Supreme Court laid down in paragraph no. 6
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
of the judgment in the case of Amar Nath (supra) as under:
"6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The main question
which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what
is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as
appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars
any revision of such an order by the High Court. The
term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal
significance and does not present any serious difficulty.
It has been used in various statutes including the Code of
Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and
other like statutes. In Webster's New World
Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order
other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down
that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those
which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties
concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the
term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973
Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any
broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a
purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide
or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the
parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of
the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties
cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a
revison to the High Court against that order, because that
would be against the very object which formed the basis
for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397
of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning
witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail,
calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the
pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to
interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie
under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders
which are matters of moment and which affect or
adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect
of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as
to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of
the High Court."
10. In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, the true import of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
the expression 'interlocutory order' for the purpose of Section
397(2) of the Act again surfaced for consideration. Referring to
Amar Nath (supra), the Supreme Court laid down in paragraphs
16 and 17 in the case of Madhu Limaye (supra) as under:-
"16. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in
Parmeshwari Devi v.State [(1977) 1 SCC 169 : 1977
SCC (Cri) 74 : (1977) 2 SCR 160] that an order made in
a criminal proceeding against a person who is not a
party to the enquiry or trial and which adversely
affected him is not an interlocutory order within the
meaning of Section 397(2). Referring to a passage from
the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal case the passage
which is to be found in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol
22, it has been said by Shinghal, J. delivering the
judgment of the Court, at p. 164 (SCC p. 172, SCC (Cri)
p. 77, para 8):
"It may thus be conclusive with reference to the stage at
which it is made, and it may also be conclusive as to a
person, who is not a party to the enquiry or trial, against
whom it is directed."
As already mentioned, the view expressed in Mohan
Lal case may be open to debate or difference. One such
example is to be found in the decision of this Court in
Prakash Chand Agarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. [(1970)
2 SCC 806 : (1971) 2 SCR 605] wherein it was held that
an order of the High Court setting aside an ex parte
decree in the suit and restoring the suit to the file of the
trial court is not a final order within the meaning of
Article 133. It is to be noticed that if the High Court
would have refused to set aside the ex parte decree, the
proceeding for setting it aside would have finally ended
and on some of the principles culled out by the majority
in Mohan Lal case, such an order would have been a
final order. We are, however, not under any necessity to
enter into this controversial arena. In our opinion
whether the type of the order aforesaid would be a final
order or not, surely it will not be an interlocutory order
within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of
the 1973 Code.
17. Before we conclude we may point out an obvious,
almost insurmountable, difficulty in the way of applying
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
literally the test laid down in Kuppuswami Rao case and
in holding that an order of the kind under consideration
being not a final order must necessarily be an
interlocutory one. If a complaint is dismissed under
Section 203 or under Section 204(4), or the Court holds
the proceeding to be void or discharges the accused, a
revision to the High Court at the instance of the
complainant or the prosecutor would be competent,
otherwise it will make Section 398 of the new Code
otiose. Does it stand to reason, then, that an accused will
have no remedy to move the High Court in revision or
invoke its inherent power for the quashing of the
criminal proceeding initiated upon a complaint or
otherwise and which is fit to be quashed on the face of
it? The Legislature left the power to order further
inquiry intact in Section 398. Is it not then, in
consonance with the sense of justice to leave intact the
remedy of the accused to move the High Court for
setting aside the order adversely made against him in
similar circumstances and to quash the proceeding? The
answer must be given in favour of the just and
reasonable view expressed by us above."
11. Later, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram
Pandey and others Vs. Uttam and Another reported in (1999) 3
SCC 134, a question had arisen as to whether an order issuing
process was an 'interlocutory order' and therefore, the same was
subject to revision or not. Answering the question, the Supreme
Court laid down in paragraph no. 6 as under:-
"6. Discretion in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction
should, therefore, be exercised within the four corners
of Section 397, whenever there has been miscarriage of
justice in whatever manner. Under sub-section (2) of
Section 397, there is a prohibition to exercise revisional
jurisdiction against any interlocutory order so that
inquiry or trial may proceed without any delay. But the
expression "interlocutory order" has not been defined
in the Code. In Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [(1977)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
4 SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585 : (1978) 1 SCR 222]
this Court has held that the expression "interlocutory
order" in Section 397(2) has been used in a restricted
sense and not in a broad or artistic sense and merely
denotes orders of purely interim or temporary nature
which do not decide or touch the important rights or
liabilities of the parties and any order which
substantially affects the right of the parties cannot be
said to be an "interlocutory order". In Madhu
Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551 :
1978 SCC (Cri) 10 : (1978) 1 SCR 749] a three-Judge
Bench of this Court has held an order rejecting the plea
of the accused on a point which when accepted will
conclude the particular proceeding, cannot be held to be
an interlocutory order. In V.C. Shukla v. State [1980
Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : (1980) 2 SCR
380] this Court has held that the term "interlocutory
order" used in the Code of Criminal Procedure has to
be given a very liberal construction in favour of the
accused in order to ensure complete fairness of the trial
and the revisional power of the High Court or the
Sessions Judge could be attracted if the order was not
purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi-final.
This being the position of law, it would not be
appropriate to hold that an order directing issuance of
process is purely interlocutory and, therefore, the bar
under sub-section (2) of Section 397 would apply. On
the other hand, it must be held to be intermediate or
quasi-final and, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 could be exercised against the same.
The High Court, therefore, was not justified in coming
to the conclusion that the Sessions Judge had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the order in view of the bar
under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code."
(underscored for emphasis)
12. The decision in the case of Girish Kumar
Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2017)
14 SCC 809, of the Supreme Court revisited the concept of
intermediate order, while addressing the question of the bar
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., para 21 of which is relevant
and is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"21. The concept of an intermediate order was further
elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra
(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] by
contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory
order. This decision lays down the principle that an
intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in
nature but when reversed, it has the effect of
terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a
final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately
come to mind--an order taking cognizance of an
offence and summoning an accused and an order for
framing charges. Prima facie these orders are
interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking
cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it
has the effect of terminating the proceedings against
that person resulting in a final order in his or her
favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if
reversed has the effect of discharging the accused
person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour.
Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed
in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if
passed in another way, the proceedings would
continue."
(underscored for emphasis)
13. The decision rendered in the case of Girish
Kumar Suneja (supra) clearly lays down that an order taking
cognizance is not an 'interlocutory order' rather an intermediate
order. Taking a cue from Girish Kumar Suneja (supra), we have
no hesitation in coming to a definite conclusion that an order
taking cognizance passed under the Act is not an 'interlocutory
order' rather an 'intermediate order' and, therefore, appealable
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
under Section 14A of the Act.
14. Further, the language of sub-Section (2) of
Section 14A is unambiguous and clearly provides that an appeal
shall lie to the High Court against an order of Special court or
Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. In the
judgment dated 14.09.2016 in case of Suman Thakur & Ors
Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr [CR. APP (SJ) No.591 of 2016]
has held in paragraph nos. 71 to 74 as under:-
"71. It is also evident that the provisions of the
Amendment Act, 2015 are in clear contradistinction
with that of the Cr.P.C. where no appeal is provided
against the order granting or refusing bail. Further, an
appeal would lie only against an order of the Special
Court or the Exclusive Special Court and unless
there is an order of the Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail, the
accused will have no right to file an appeal before the
High Court praying for grant of bail. Thus, existence of
an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive
Special Court is sine qua non for approaching the
High Court in appeal.
72. However, an accused may, in terms of Section 14-
A(2) of the Amendment Act, 2015, prefer an appeal to
the High Court against an order passed by the Special
Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the case
may be, refusing to enlarge him on bail in exercise of
power conferred under Chapter XXXIII of the
Cr.P.C.. If a Special Court or an Exclusive Special
Court, as the case may be, grants bail under the SC &
ST Act, 1989, the State cannot invoke the High
Court‟s power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for
cancellation of bail. The remedy of the State also lies
in preferring an appeal before the High Court in terms
of Section 14-A(2) of the Amendment Act, 2015.
73. In Cr.P.C., the provision for appeal against acquittal
has been made under Section 378. An appeal against
acquittal is not maintainable without leave of the Court
in terms of Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. when an order
granting or refusing bail has been made appealable, a
question would have arisen whether an appeal
preferred by the State against an order of bail would
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
require leave of the High Court. It appears from the
reading of the provisions of the Amendment Act,
2015 that the Parliament in order to override any such
objection, as a matter of caution, deemed it appropriate
to introduce into Section 14-A(2) non-obstante clause
by using the expression "Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the
Code" so that an appeal against an order granting bail
preferred by the State does not require leave of the
High Court.
74. Thus, sub-section (2) of Section 14-A of the
Amendment Act, 2015 has an overriding effect on the
limitation placed by subsection (3) of Section 378 of
the Cr.P.C. It is in this context the Parliament has made
a reference to sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the
Cr.P.C. in Section 14-A(2) of the Amendment Act,
2015 and no other meaning can be attached to the said
expression used in Section 14-A(2) of the Amendment
Act, 2015."
15. Learned single-Judge, in the case of Suman
Thakur (supra), in our opinion, after having referred to the
provisions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C., has rightly held
that when an offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other
law is committed, the Cr.P.C. shall regulate the mode of
investigation, inquiry or trial unless there is an enactment to
regulate the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into the
trial or otherwise, dealing with such offences. In the latter case,
special enactment will prevail over those provisions of the
Cr.P.C. in the absence of any specific provision contrary in
Cr.P.C.. Sections 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C. read thus:-
4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and
other laws.--(1) All offences under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into,
tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the
provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
under any other law shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the
same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the
time being in force regulating the manner of place of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise
dealing with such offences.
5. Saving.--Nothing contained in this Code shall, in
the absence of a specific provision to the contrary,
affect any special or local law for the time being in
force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred,
or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any
other law for the time being in force."
16. It is an unexceptionable legal principle that in
case of conflict between a general provision and a special
provision, it is the special provision that shall prevail. We need
to do nothing but to reiterate for the present purpose, the well
accepted doctrine of 'generalia specialibus non derogant',
which has precisely been stated in Craies on Statute Law, 5th
edition at page 205, which reads thus:-
"The rule is, that whenever there is a particular
enactment and a general enactment in the same
statute, and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive
sense, would overrule the former, the particular
enactment must be operative, and the general
enactment must be taken to affect the only other parts
of the statute to which it may properly apply."
17. In our opinion, learned single-Judge in the
case of Suman Thakur (supra) has correctly held that in terms
of Section 14A(2) of the Act, an appeal would lie to the High
Court against the order passed by the Special Court or Exclusive
Special Court granting to or refusing to enlarge a person on bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
18. It is worthwhile noticing that conflicting
views in two Single Bench decisions of this Court on the point
of maintainability of anticipatory bail applications under Section
438 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court in connection with the case
registered for commission of the offence punishable under the
provisions of the Act, the issue had come up for consideration
before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bisheshwar
Mishra (supra). The Division Bench, in the said case, framed
following questions in paragraph no. 9 of its decision to answer
the reference:-
"9. In the background of the facts stated above,
though the learned single Judges have framed no issue,
while referring the matter to the Division Bench, following
questions would be required to be determined in these cases
:-
(i) Whether a person, accused of committing an
offence under the Act, is specifically barred from the
benefit of statutory provisions of prearrest bail provided in
Section 438 of the Code?
(ii) Whether a Court of Session or the High
Court, while dealing with an application for grant of pre-
arrest bail, is allowed to scrutinize the relevant materials
with a view to find out whether any offence, under the Act,
has been made out or not?
(iii) Whether an application, under Section 438
of the Code, for grant of pre-arrest bail can be maintained
with respect to a person, who is an accused in a case
registered for the offence punishable, under the various
provisions of the Act, if such a person is in a position to
satisfy the court that even on the basis of allegations
contained in the First Information Report or Complaint
petition, no ingredient of commission of any offence, under
the provisions of the Act, is made out against him ?
(iv) Whether an application, under Section 438
of the Code, in a criminal case instituted under the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
provisions of the Act, can be entertained by a Court of
Session not specified or declared either as Special Court or
Exclusive Special Court under the Act ?
(v) Whether consequent upon introduction of
Section 14-A by way of the Amendment Act, 2015, in the
Act, an appeal would be maintainable against an order
passed on an application filed in the court below, under
Section 438 of the Code, in a case instituted under the
provisions of the Act ?
(vi) Whether an accused, apprehending his
arrest in a case instituted under the provisions of the Act,
can directly file an application under Section 438 of the
Code before the High Court ?"
19. The Division Bench, in the case of
Bisheshwar Mishra (supra), noticing the Supreme Court's
decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Salimbhai Abdul
Gaffar Shaikh and Ors reported in (2003) 8 SCC 50, in which
a para materia provision under the Prevention of Terrorism Act,
2002 (POTA in short) was under consideration, has held in
paragraph nos. 74 to 77 as under:-
"74. We have already seen that the provisions,
prescribed under Section 14-A, are in clear
contradistinction to that of the Code. Section 14-A of
the Act provides for an appeal against an order of the
Special Court and, in view of the ratio laid down by
the Supreme Court, in State of Gujarat Vs. Salimbhai
Abdulgaffar Shaikh (supra), it becomes clear that
unless there is an order of Special Court refusing or
granting pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code,
the accused cannot invoke the power of the High
Court, under Section 438 of the Code, to grant pre-
arrest bail.
75. In other words, in order to obtain an order under
Section 438 of the Code, an accused is required to,
first, apply to the Special Court or the Exclusive
Special Court, as the case may be, and he can,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
thereafter, prefer an appeal against an order refusing
bail if his application for is rejected by such Court.
Similarly, even the State can prefer an appeal if the
Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the
case may be, allows an application for prearrest bail
made under Section 438 of the Code, to such an
accused person. Further, unless there is an order of the
Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting
or refusing bail, the accused will have no right to file
an appeal before the High Court for grant of pre-arrest
bail.
76. Thus, existence of an order of the Special Court or
the Exclusive Special Court is a sine qua non for
approaching the High Court in appeal. This is because
the provisions, prescribed under Section 14-A of the
Act, have an overriding effect over the provisions of
the Code in view of the provisions prescribed under
Section 4(2) of the Code.
77. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that in a
case instituted under the provisions of the Act, an
accused, apprehending his arrest, cannot directly file
an application, under Section 438 of the Code, seeking
pre-arrest bail before this Court as the provisions,
prescribed under Section 14-A(1) and (2) of the Act,
like Section 34(1) and (4) of the POTA, are in clear
contradistinction to that of the Code, where no appeal
is provided against an order granting or refusing bail.
Hence, an appeal can lie only against an order of the
Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the
case may be. The accused will have no right to directly
file an application under Section 438 of the Code
before this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail."
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Salimbhai
Abdul Gaffar Shaikh (supra) had an occasion to deal with sub-
Sections (1) and (4) of Section 34 of the POTA, which read
thus:-
"34. Appeal.- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie
from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an
interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
Court both on facts and on law.
(2) Every appeal under Sub-section (1)
shall be heard by a bench of two Judges of the High
Court.
(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or
revision shall lie to any court from any judgment,
sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a
Special Court.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained
in Subsection (3) of section 378 of the Code, an
appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order
of the Special Court granting or refusing bail."
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Salimbhai Abdul
Gaffar Shaikh (supra), dealing with Section 34 of the POTA has
laid down in paragraph nos. 10 and 11, as under:-
"10. Sub-section (4) of Section 34 of
POTA provides for an appeal to the High Court
against an order of the Special Court granting or
refusing bail. Though the word "appeal" is used both
in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of
Civil Procedure and in many other statutes but it has
not been defined anywhere. Over a period of time, it
has acquired a definite connotation and meaning
which is as under:
"A proceeding undertaken to have a
decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher
authority, especially the submission of a lower court's
decision to a higher court for review and possible
reversal.
An appeal, strictly so-called, is one in
which the question is, whether the order of the court
from which the appeal is brought was right on the
material which the court had before it.
An appeal is removal of the cause from an
inferior to one of superior jurisdiction for the
purposes of obtaining a review or retrial.
An appeal, generally speaking, is a
rehearing by a superior court on both law and fact."
11. Broadly speaking, therefore, an appeal
is a proceeding taken to rectify an erroneous decision
of a court by submitting the question to a higher
court, and in view of the express language used in
sub-section (1) of Section 34 of POTA the appeal
would lie both on facts and on law. Therefore even an
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
order granting bail can be examined on merits by the
High Court without any kind of fetters on its powers
and it can come to an independent conclusion whether
the accused deserves to be released on bail on the
merits of the case. The considerations which are
generally relevant in the matter of cancellation of bail
under sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code will
not come in the way of the High Court in setting aside
an order of the Special Court granting bail. It is,
therefore, evident that the provisions of POTA are in
clear contradistinction with that of the Code of
Criminal Procedure where no appeal is provided
against an order granting bail. The appeal can lie only
against an order of the Special Court and unless there
is an order of the Special Court refusing bail, the
accused will have no right to file an appeal before the
High Court praying for grant of bail to them.
Existence of an order of the Special Court is,
therefore, a sine qua non for approaching the High
Court."
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Salimbhai
Abdul Gaffar Shaikh (supra), dispelled the contention of the
respondents in that case that power of the High Courts to grant
bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. had not been taken away
by (POTA) when the learned single-Judge had the jurisdiction to
grant bail to accused in exercise of the power conferred by the
said provision and held in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 of
Salimbhai Abdul Gaffar Shaikh (supra) read thus: -
"14. That apart, if the argument of the
learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it
would mean that a person whose bail under POTA has
been rejected by the Special Court will have two
remedies and he can avail any one of them at his
sweet will. He may move a bail application before the
High Court under Section 439 CrPC in the original or
concurrent jurisdiction which may be heard by a
Single Judge or may prefer an appeal under sub-
section (4) of Section 34 of POTA which would be
heard by a Bench of two Judges. To interpret a
statutory provision in such a manner that a court can
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
exercise both appellate and original jurisdiction in
respect of the same matter will lead to an incongruous
situation. The contention is therefore fallacious.
15. In the present case, the respondents
did not choose to apply for bail before the Special
Court for offences under POTA and consequently,
there was no order or refusal of bail for offences
under the said Act. The learned Single Judge
exercising powers under Section 439 read with
Section 482 CrPC granted them bail. The order of the
High Court is clearly without jurisdiction as under the
scheme of the Act the accused can only file an appeal
against an order of refusal of bail passed by the
Special Court before a Division Bench of the High
Court and, therefore, the order under challenge cannot
be sustained and has to be set aside. Even on merits,
the order of the High Court is far from satisfactory.
Though it is a very long order running into 87
paragraphs but the factual aspects of the case have
been considered only in one paragraph and that too in
a very general way."
(underscored for emphasis)
23. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of
Salimbhai Abdul Gaffar Shaikh (supra) also repelled the
contention that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can
be resorted to for enlarging the respondent of that case, an
accused under POTA, on bail.
24. In view of the above-noted discussions, while
answering the Reference made in the order dated 08.04.2019,
we conclude as under:-
(i) The decision rendered by a bench of
this Court in the case of Suman Thakur (supra) lays
down the correct law and is specifically affirmed.
(ii). We are in respectful agreement with
the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018 dt.09-08-2023
the case of Bisheshwar Misra (supra).
(iii). An order taking cognizance by a
Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court is not
an 'interlocutory order', and, therefore, an appeal
would lie against such order under Section 14A(1)
of the Act.
(iv). We have not gone into the question of
constitutional validity of any provision under the Act
which has not been raised in any of the cases before
us.
25. The Reference stands answered, accordingly.
26. These matters may be placed for adjudication/disposal
before appropriate bench(es).
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Rajesh Kumar Verma, J: - I agree.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
ranjan/suraj-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 04.02.2023.
Uploading Date 10.08.2023.
Transmission Date N/A
