Telangana High Court
Bacha Yadaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9899 of 2022
ORDER:
1. Seeking pre-arrest bail, the present Criminal Petition
is filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused
Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.92 of 2022 of Motakondur Police
Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.
2. Making his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioners states that the petitioners have not committed
any offences whatsoever, much less, the offences attracting
the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel
states that the 1st petitioner sustained injuries and his son
i.e. the 3rd petitioner, gave a complaint to police basing on
which a case was registered. Learned counsel states that
after three months, as an afterthought, the 3rd respondent
gave complaint to police. Learned counsel, by stating so,
seeks for anticipatory bail.
3. On the other hand, the submission of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, who is representing
Dr.CSL,J
Crl.P.No.9899 of 2022
Respondent Nos.1 & 2, states that the case is still under
investigation. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/
de facto complainant submits that as the 3rd respondent
was abused in the name of her caste and was beaten and
threatened, a complaint was given to police. Learned
counsel also states that on the same day of incident, a
complaint was given. But the case was registered
belatedly.
4. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as
follows:-
"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons
committing an offence under the Act.--Nothing in
section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any
case involving the arrest of any person on an
accusation of having committed an offence under this
Act."
5. Therefore, when an accusation is made on having
committed an offence punishable under the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not apply.
Dr.CSL,J
Crl.P.No.9899 of 2022
6. Making a submission that even in those cases the
said provision of law applies, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case between PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1. In the said case, a Writ
Petition was filed questioning the constitutional validity of
Section 18-A which was inserted by way of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2018. While dealing with the said issue,
dealing with the right of the accused to claim anticipatory
bail where an allegation is made that they have committed
offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, the Court at Paras 32 & 33 of the order held as
follows:-
"32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and
anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra,
J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie
materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the
Court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest
bail.
(2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727
Dr.CSL,J
Crl.P.No.9899 of 2022
33. I would only add a caveat with the
observation and emphasize that while considering
any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court
has to balance the two interests: i.e. that the power is
not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that
under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure code, but
that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very
exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is
made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if
such orders are not made in those classes of cases,
the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice
or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent
terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail,
absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the
power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the
intention of Parliament."
7. By the above decision, it is clear that though such a
power can be exercised, the power shall not be used so as
to convert the jurisdiction into Section 438 Cr.P.C. and
that it has to be used sparingly and in very exceptional
cases, that too, where no prima facie offence is made out.
In the case on hand, this Court does not find any such
exceptional circumstances. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the request sought for, cannot be granted.
Dr.CSL,J
Crl.P.No.9899 of 2022
8. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
Date: 15.12.2022
ysk
Dr.CSL,J
Crl.P.No.9899 of 2022
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9899 of 2022
Date: 15.12.2022
ysk
