SURESH Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Wagh for the applicant, learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Deshmukh for non-applicant No. 1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.M. Bhagde for non-applicant No. 2. The applicant is the complainant in First Information Report No. 3031/2011 of Patur Police Station, District Akola. The applicant has moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant No. 1 Vinod Purushottam Dhanokar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The First Information Report was filed by the applicant against non-applicant No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The First Information Report was filed on 19th April, 2011. However, the offence was registered on 26th May, 2011. Non-applicant No. 1 had moved the Sessions Court for grant of bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to non-applicant No. 1 on 7th June, 2011. The applicant thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail on 2nd September, 2011. The said application was decided on 2nd December, 2011. The prayer of the applicant for cancellation of bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The applicant, therefore, filed the present application before this Court on 21st March, 2012 for cancellation of bail. It appears from the record and proceedings that the circulation was taken sometime in last week of April or first week of May, 2012. The notices were issued to non-applicant No. 1/original accused and non-applicant No. 2/State of Maharashtra.

(2.) During the course of arguments, learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Wagh has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to non-applicant No. 1 was erroneous and needs to be set aside. It is submitted that in view of statutory bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have granted bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This issue was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge when an application for cancellation of bail was made, which came to be decided on 2nd December, 2012. However, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not examined this issue in detail.

(3.) Before considering the issue raised by learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Wagh in respect of competency of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to entertain the application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, certain relevant dates are necessary to be mentioned here to examine whether the case is made out for cancellation of bail.