BACHU DASversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

                     [2014] 2 S.C.R. 287


                          BACHU DAS                                A
                                V.
               STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
              (Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2014)
                     FEBRUARY 03, 2014
                                                                   B
      [P. SATHAS~VAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

        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 PELLATE 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
  attention to the relevant materials, namely, the complaint, the
0 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.
         7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing
H
  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 Criminal
    Revision the same is hereby dismissed."
     8. It is clear that the learned Magistrate carefully perused   E
the complaint petition, as well as the statement of the
complainant and four witnesses examined during enquiry and
arrived a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons
that offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 1.P.C. and
Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, is made out. In such circumstance
and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the       F
learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court reported
in {2012) 7 SCC 795 [Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another v.
State of Maharashtra and Others], submitted that the High
Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail. In similar
circumstance, this Court has considered the offence under
Section 3(1), as well as the bar provided under Section 18 of       G
the SC/ST Act and concluded as under:
     "Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking
     Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the
     court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find
     out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST         H
    290       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  l~Q:11i4f 2. ~.C.R.


A         Act has been prima facie made out. In other Words, if there
          is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or
          intimidation with int~nt to humiliate by calling with caste
          name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory
          bail.
B               The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with
          Section 438 of the Code is such. that it 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
C         offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the
          application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence
          and other m9terial on record is limited. The court is not _
          e~pected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on
          record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special
D         Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled
          Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been
          imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code,
          the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed
          aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence."
E        9. In the light of the factual details, as found in the order of
    the learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, dated 28th
    November, 2008, and in the light of the statutory provision as
    interpreted by this Court in the above cited decision, we are
    satisfied that the High Court has committed an error in granting
    anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. The
F   respondent Nos.2 to 8/accused are granted four weeks' time
    from today to surrender before the appropriate Court and seek
    for regular bail.
        10. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits
  of their claim and it is open to the respondents/accused to put
G forth their stand, including their claim that during the interregnum
  period, namely, 26.02.2010, the date on which the High Court
  has granted the anticipatory bail and till today, no untoward
  incident occurred at their instances.
          11. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed.
H D.G.                                                 Appeal allowed.