DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 20-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 33 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018)
MARCH 20, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.18 – Exclusion of anticipatory bail, in
cases of false implications – Procedural safeguards – Respondent
no.2-complainant, a govt. employee belonging to Scheduled Caste,
lodged FIR in 2006 against his two senior officers (non-Scheduled
Caste) when they made adverse entry in his Annual Confidential
Report – Sanction to proceed against the said two senior officers,
refused by appellant in 2011 – Present FIR lodged by respondent
no.2 against the appellant in 2016 – Appellant sought quashing of
proceedings, which was rejected by High Court – Held: There is no
absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the
Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial
scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide – Exclusion
of anticipatory bail is justified only to protect victims of perpetrators
of crime in  genuine cases– It cannot be made applicable to those
who are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons – To avoid false
implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted
by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out
a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not
frivolous or motivated – Arrest of a public servant can only be after
approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant
after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate
cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded – Such reasons
must be scrutinized by Magistrate for permitting further detention
– In the instant case, the proceedings against appellant are clear
abuse of process of court and are quashed – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.438 and ss.482, 41, 41A, 197 – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.182, 192, 193, 203 and s.219 r/w s.34 – Constitution of
India – Arts.14, 15, 16 and 21 – The Scheduled Castes and The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 – r.12(4) –
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – Terrorist and Disruptive
[2018] 4  S.C.R. 877
877
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 – s.17(4), (5) – Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.43D(4), (5) – Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 – ss.21(3), (4) – Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.41, 41A – Power of
arrest – Held: Enforcement of a legislation has to be consistent
with the fundamental rights – Power of arrest is to be exercised
with caution – Mere unilateral allegation by any individual
belonging to any caste, when such allegation is clearly motivated
and false, cannot deprive a person of his liberty without an
independent scrutiny – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Interpretation of Statutes – Literal interpretation vis-à-vis
purposive interpretation – Held: A statute is to be read in the context
of the background and its object – Exclusion of provision for
anticipatory bail cannot possibly, by any reasonable interpretation,
be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations
are patently false or motivated – Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine
of proportionality.
Criminal Trial – Presumption of innocence – Held: Presumption
of innocence is a human right – Placing of burden of proof on
accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot
be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty –
Protection of innocent is as important as punishing the guilty –
Human rights.
Constitution of India – Powers/Role of Supreme Court to issue
appropriate orders or directions for enforcement of fundamental
rights – Held: Role of Supreme Court travels beyond merely dispute
settling and directions can be issued which are not directly in conflict
with a valid statute – Power to declare law carries with it, within the
limits of duty, to make law when none exists.
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Purpose and object of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Consideration of the issue whether directions can
be issued by this Court to protect fundamental right under Article
21 against uncalled for false implication and arrests
A
B
C
D

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