STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. versus RAM KISHNA BALOTHIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 06-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

( 
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RAM KISHNA BALOTHIA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 6, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 
1989: Section 18-0ffences fall into a separate and special class-Cannot be 
compared with other offences-Anticipatory bail-Denial of-Neither un-
reasonable nor unconstitutional. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 438-Anticipatory 
bail-Neither an essential ingredient nor an integral part of Article 21 of the 
Constitution-Denial to special category of offences-Held : cannot be con-
sidered as violative of Article 21. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 21. 
Right to Anticipatory bail-Special category of offences-Denial 
of-Held : not an essential ingredient or an integral part and its denial not 
violative of Articles 14 and 21. 
The respondents had filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the constitutional validity of Section 18 of the Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which 
was allowed. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellants 
preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the offences 
enumerated in the Act fell into a separate and special class; that the 
offences arose out of the practice of "untouchability"; that exclusion of 
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had to be viewed in 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the context of prevailing social conditions; and that if anticipatory bail was G 
granted to the offenders they were likely to terrorise their victims and 
prevent a proper investigation. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that while Section 438 
of the Code was available for graver offences under the Indian Penal Code, 
., 1860 it was not available for offences under the Act; that Section 438 of the H 
897 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A code was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution; and that Section 
18 of the Act was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Sechduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
B of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted in order to prevent the commission of 
atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 
to provide for special courts for the trial of offence under the Act as also 
to provide for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of such offences. 
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to any 
C case involving arrest of any person accused of having committed any of 
the offences under Section 18 of the Act. [901-D-E, 903-F] 
D 
1.2. It is undoubtedly true that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, which is available to an accused in respect of offences under the 
Penal Code, is not available in respect of offences under the Act. [903-F] 
1.3. The offences enumerated under the Act fall into a separate and 
special class. Article 17 of the Constitution expressly deals with abolition 
of "Untouchability" and forbids its practice in any form. It also provides 
that enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be 
E an offence punishable in accordance with law. The offences, therefore, 
which are enumerated under Section 3(1) of the Act arise out of the 
practice of "Untouchability". It is in this context that certain special 
provisions have been made in the Ad, including the impugned provision 
under Section 18 of· the Act. Exclusion of Section 438 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under the said Act has to 
F 
be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions which .give rise 
to such offences, and the.apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities 
are likely to threaten and intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct 
them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the offende..S are allowed to 
avail of anticipatory bail. [903-G-H, 904-A-B] 
G 
2.1. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Bill, 
1989 graphically describes the social conditions which motivated the said 
legislation. It is pointed out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that 
when members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their 
H rights and demand statutory protection, vested interest try to cow them 
STA TE v. R.K. BALOTHIA 
899 
down and terr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.