SABIR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Submissions were made on appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'SC/ST Act') praying for anticipatory bail of the appellant-Sabir Khan against whom Crime No. 01/2019 has been registered in Police Station-Agar (AJK) for committing offence under Sections 354, 354-B, 294, 506, 323/34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s), 3(ii)(5)(A) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

(2.) Learned counsel for the complainant/objector submits that the provisions of anticipatory bail are not applicable and Section 18(a) of the Act prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail. She has pointed out the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in Laws (SC) 2012-9-21 in which the Apex Court has held that scope of Section 18 of SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to an order of this High Court pronounced in CRA No. 4150/2019 Sanjay Keshwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, order dated 19.06.2019 in which reference has been made of the new amended section 18-A of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has observed that this amendment was incorporated to nullify the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (CRA No. 416/2018) pronounced on 20.03.2018. The court further refers to a citation of Apex Court in Manju Devi v. Omkarjit Singh Ahluwalia and Others AIR 2017 SC 1583 in which it has been held that malafides or bonafides of a case can only be considered at the time of trial. In view of the specific bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act, grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents was considered unjustified.