PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for cancellation of an order of anticipatory bail as granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in a case Under section 147, 452, 427 and 149 Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 3/18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(in short 'the act')

(2.) It is alleged by the learned Advocate for the complainant-petitioner that it was not a fit case for granting of anticipatory bail more so in view of the pronouncement made by the Supreme court in State of M.P. and another Vs. Ram Krishna Balothia and another, reported in 1995 (3) SCC 221 where it was held inter alia that non-applicability of provisions of the anticipatory bail Under section 338 Code Criminal Procedure in respect of offence Under section 3 of the Act was not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution having regard to the historical background of the legislation and the social condition in which the legislation has been implemented in India. It was held in this case by the Supreme Court that offences enumerated Under section 3 pertain to a separate and special class and denial of anticipatory bail in the circumstances was not unreasonable where the legislature in its wisdom has made departure from the established procedure. That apart, provisions relating to anticipatory bail do not form an integral part of Art. 21 of the constitution and the right to get anticipatory bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. By various pronouncements made by our High court in many of its judgments, the latest of which was in Rakesh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 R.C.C. 329 , it was observed that the Court must consider the evidence gathered during investigation to see if a prima facie case does exist against an accused, relating to the provisions of Sec. 3 and 18 of the act, and in case, prima facie, no case exists against an accused, then, benefit of Sec. 438 Code Criminal Procedure could be extended. In the latest of these decisions, as stated above, the Supreme Court pronouncement in State of M.P. and another Vs. Ram Krishan Balothia(ibid) was taken note of but a distinction was sought to be made that there was no absolute bar in this regard regarding granting of anticipatory bail provided of course, no prima facie case was made out and the ingredients constituting offence either Under section 3 or Sec. 18 of the act were not made out.

(3.) in the present case, the police has already submitted a final report submitting inter alia before the Court that no prima facie case has been established.