LOKESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 15th December, 2020, after noticing the conflict of views expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court, the learned Single Judge referred following question to a larger Bench:

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and the learned SPP appearing for the State on the aforesaid issue.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 14-A of the SC and ST Act specifically overrides sub-section (3) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Sub-section (3) of Section 378 deals with only an appeal against the acquittal. His submission is that therefore, an appeal against an order granting or refusing to grant bail will not be an appealable order. He also invited our attention to Section 18 of the SC and ST Act which provides that the provisions of Section 438 of the pre-arrest will not apply to any case involving arrest of any person on the allegation of a crime being committed under the SC and ST Act. He invited our attention to paragraph 10 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v- Union of India and others , 2020 AIR(SC) 1036 . His submission is that though Section 20 of the SC and ST Act provides for overriding the provisions of any other law for the time being in force which are inconsistent with the provisions of the SC and ST Act, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of Section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C which confer the concurrent jurisdiction on the Sessions Court and the High Court and the provisions of the SC and ST Act. His submission is that the provisions of Section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C which confer a power on the High Court to consider the applications for pre-arrest bail or regular bail as the case may be, operate in a different field in the sense that it is not an appeal against the order of the Sessions Court denying the prayer for pre-arrest or bail. The learned counsel would submit that if this Court comes to the conclusion that an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 14- A will lie against the order of the Special Court refusing or granting bail, still the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. remains intact. Lastly, he submits that in case the appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 14-A is held to be maintainable, this Court will have to decide the issue whether such an appeal will lie before a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench.