BACHU DAS versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 03-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 2 S.C.R. 287 
BACHU DAS 
V. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 03, 2014 
[P. SATHAS~VAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 - Anticipatory 
bail - Complaint u/s.3 of SC/ST Act and ss.147, 148, 149, 
323, 448 /PC - Order of Sessions Judge that on perusal of c 
complaint and statement of witnesses examined during 
enquiry, prima facie case made out against accused under 
the alleged offences - However, grant of anticipatory bail by 
· High Court - On appeal by complainant, held: The scope. of 
s. 18 of the SC/ST Act rlw s.438 of the Code is such that it D 
creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail - When 
an offence is registered against a person under the provisions 
of .the SC/ST Act, ·no court shall entertain an application for 
anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an 
offence is not made out - In the light of order of sessions judge 
E 
and statutory provision, the High Court has committed error 
in granting Anticipatory bail - Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3. 
Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra 
and Ors. 2012 (7) sec 795 - relied on. 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
2012 (7) sec. 795 
relied on 
para 8 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 314 of 2014. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2010 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. Misc. No. 16213 of 
2010. 
287 
H 
288 · 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Anuj Prakash, Samir Ali Khan for the Appellant. 
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Ravi Shankar Kumar, B.K. 
Choudhary, Nitin Kumar Thakur for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered. by 
8 
ORDER 
1. Heard all the parties concerned. 
2. Leave granted. 
C 
3. The complainant, aggrieved by the impugned order of 
the High Court dated 5th May, 2010, granting anticipatory bail 
to the respondent Nos.2 to 8 (accused Nos.1 to 7), has filed 
the above appeal. 
4. Learned counsel for the appellant by drawing our 
0 attention to the relevant materials, namely, the complaint, the 
statement of the complainant and four witnesses, as well as the 
relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the SC/ 
ST Act'),,submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting 
anticipatory bail, particularly, in the light of the factual conclusion 
E arrived at by the Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, Bihar on 
28th November, 2008. 
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State supported 
the claim of the appellant. 
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ 
F accused submitted that from the day, namely, 26th February, 
2010, when the High Court granted anticipatory bail to these 
persons, no untoward incident occurred and cooperated with 
Investigating Officer. He also brought to our notice the earlier 
order of the High Court dated 26th February, 2010, wherein it 
G is mentioned that there is serious land dispute between the 
parties and use of filthy language by cast name, is 
unacceptable. Relying on this order, the counsel for the accused 
submitted that no interterence is called for in the order passed 
by the High Court. 
H 
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing 
BACHU DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
289 
for the appellant/complainant, in the order dated 28th 
A 
November, 2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at 
Chapra, after taking note of all the materials, has concluded as 
under: 
"Having considered the submissions urged at the bar, 
going through the impugned order and L.C.R. and finding 
B 
that the learned Magistrate after perusal of complaint 
petition, statement of complainant and of four witnesses 
examined during enquiry has come to the conclusion that 
against the accused persons offence u/s 147/148/149/ 
323/448 of the 1.P.C. and u/s 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act is 
made out which appears quite legal, proper and correct 
C 
one. At this stage the Magistrate is required only to see 
as to whether on the basis of the materials available on 
the record prlma facie case is made out or not? I have 
also perused the materials placed on the record and the 
Court is of the opinion that against the accused persons 
D 
prima facie case as found by the learned Magistrate is 
made out and the accused persons have rightly been 
summoned. In the result finding no merit in this Cr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.