STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DINESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The explanation offered by the concerned Court is accepted and the issue is accordingly given a quietus.

(2.) Evidently, the only ground on which the present petition assailing the release of the respondent on anticipatory bail has been filed is that the same was in contravention of Sec. 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'Act').

(3.) Even though Sec. 18 of the Act specifically states that the provisions of Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') which give power to the Court to release the accused on anticipatory bail do not apply to persons committing an offence under the Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan versus State of Maharashtra and another (2018) 6 SCC 454 held that "There is no absolute bar for grant of anticipatory bail, if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny, the complaint is found prima facie malafide". It shall be apposite to refer to para-79 of the report which reads thus:-