P. SURENDRAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 29-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
P. SURENDRAN
v.
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(SLP (Crl.) No. 1832  of  2019)
MARCH 29, 2019
[N.V. RAMANA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR JJ.]
Bail:
Anticipatory bail – Sought in a case wherein offence u/s. 3(ii)
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 was alleged – Initially rejected by District Judge
– Later High Court registry refused to number and list the
application before the Court and dismissed the application on the
ground that offence being under SC/ST Act, the bail application
was not maintainable – On appeal, held: The act of numbering a
petition is purely administrative –  The objections taken by the Court
Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial
application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard –
Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indi-
cates at application of judicial mind – The determination in this
case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not
have rejected the numbering – The High Court Registry could not
have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability
of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court – The
power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry –
The Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition
and place it before an appropriate Bench.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand and
Ors. AIR 1963 SC 677 : [1963]  Suppl. SCR 242 –
followed.
Case Law Reference
[1963]  Suppl. SCR  242       followed
Para 9
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 467
   467
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.1832 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2019 of the  High
Court  of  Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at
Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu in Crl. M.P. No.5697 of 2018..
Vikas Singh Jangra, Amit Kumar Pathak, Advs. for the Appellant.
K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General  for India, R. Balasubramanian,
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, A.K. Sharma, Mrs.Anil  Katiyar, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the impugned
order and judgment dated 02.01.2019, in Crl.M.P. No. 5697 of 2018
passed by the Learned Court of. The Principle Sessions Judge of
Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu and the order of
the High Court Registry, in not numbering the anticipatory bail petition of
the petitioner-accused herein.
2. We need to refer to the basic facts necessary for the disposal
of the case at hand. An FIR was filed against the three co-accused
(Murugesan, S. M. Ekambaram and Ramaswamy), before the PS
Pallikaranai, St. Thomas Mount, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu,
being Crime No. 937 of 2017, dated 03.04.2017, under Section 147, 148,
448, 302 and 506 of IPC. It is averred that subsequently Offence under
Section 3(ii) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 [‘SC/ST Act’] was also added.
Further it is to be noted that the Petitioner herein was later arrayed as an
accused by the police. In view of apprehension of arrest, the petitioner
filed an Anticipatory Bail Application being Crl.M.P. No. 5697 of 2018,
before the Learned Court of The Principal Sessions Judge of
Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
3. The District Principal Judge by an Order dated 02.01.2019,
dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by
the same, petitioner approached the High Court of Madras seeking
anticipatory bail, but the Registry of the High Court refused to number
and list the matter before the court on the following office objection-
“It may be stated how this petition for Anticipatory Bail is
maintainable, since the offence is under SC/ST Act”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
Even though the petitioner herein replied to the aforesaid office
objection, the High Court Registry rejected numbering of the petition
and dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Petition on the issue of
maintainability under SC/ST Act.
4. Aggrieved by such non-registration, the petitioner is before this
Court on a question of law as to whether the Madras High Court
Registry was wrong, in not numbering the Anticipatory-Bail Petition and
as to whether consequent dismissal of the same on the issue of
maintainability of the petition impinges on the judicial function of the
High Court?
5. In view of the importance of the matter, this Court had
requested
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.