REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Sudip Mondal Appellant

V/S

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DR. RABINDRANATH PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
VILAS PANDURANG PAWAR AND ANOTHER VRS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
GURBAKSH SINGHSIBBIA SARBAJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAM KISHNA BA LOTHIA [REFERRED TO]
INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI AGARWAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ANEETA HADA VS. GODFATHER TRAVELS ALIAS TOURS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTLA DEVI VS. BALJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BACHU DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for our consideration in the present petition of anticipatory bail is whether the bar under Sec. 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('S.C. S.T. Act' for short) as amended in 2015 and 2018 is absolute.

(2.) The S.C. S.T. Act came into force w.e.f. 30/1/1990. It needs no mention that, this Act is relatable to the expression 'Law' in Article 17 of the Constitution of India. The objects and reasons of the S.C. S.T. Act clearly pronounce that the members of the S.C. and S.T. communities remain vulnerable and they are denied number of civil rights in the society. They are also subjected to numerous humiliation and harassments.

(3.) Subsequently, in umpteen decisions, Hon'ble the Supreme Court and different High Courts dealt with the question of bar of Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. in Sec. 18 of the S.C. S.T. Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

SUDIP MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address