DEBJYOTI BHATTACHARYYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the light of the manner in which the larger legal issues raised here are proposed to be dealt with, the matter falls within a narrow compass. One of the charges against the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail is under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Despite the recent amendment to such Act of 1989 and the introduction of Section 18-A by such amendment with effect from August 20, 2018, the petitioner maintains that not only is the petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail maintainable, but the merits of the matter need also to be gone into as in any other case under such provision of the Code.

(2.) Section 18 of the said Act fell for consideration of the Supreme Court yet again in a recent judgment reported at (Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 6 SCC 454) where, upon noticing several previous Supreme Court judgments on such provision, it was concluded as follows at paragraph 79 of the report:

(3.) The directions contained in such order were issued in the context of the finding rendered therein that cases under the said Act "also fall in exceptional category where preliminary inquiry must be held inquiry must be time-bound arrest is not a must ". The judgment in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan was rendered upon interpreting Section 18 of the said Act in the light of the constitutional safeguards pertaining to liberty and freedom and despite Section 18 of the said Act being worded thus: