BAPU GOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 149/95 registered in Shahapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They have filed this petition under Section 438 Cri. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia, AIR 1995 SC 1998 : (1995 Cri LJ 2076), has held that the offences 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 Act, including Section 18. The exclusion of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under the said Act has to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions which give rise to such offence, and the apprehension that perpetrators of such artoricties are likely to threaten and intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Referring to the statement of objects and reasons the Court held that the above statement graphically describes the social conditions which motivated the said legislation. It is pointed out in the above Statement of Objects and Reasons that when members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection, vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. In these circumstances, if anticipatory bail is not made available to persons who commit such offences, such a denial cannot be considered as unreasonable or violative of Article 14, as these offences from a distinct class by themselves and cannot be compared with other offences.