Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Surva Ghosh has held that the court is not denuded of its power to look into the anticipatory bail petition of a person accused of having committed an offence under section 3 of the Act without indicating the nature of the offence. This observation has come after the recent amendment providing against the applicability of Section 438 CrPC dealing with Anticipatory Bail to cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act which deals with atrocities against members of SC/ST.
The observations were made while deciding the plea of one Debjyoti Bhattacharya seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him wherein one of the charges was under Section 3 of the SC and ST. The said section deals with prevention of atrocities against SC/ST. While referring to the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra, on the contention of petitioner that despite the recent amendment to the Act and the introduction of Section 18-A the petition under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable, the high court said, “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”
The anticipatory bail plea was dismissed observing the police case diary to conclude that it cannot be said that the accusation does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under the said Act.
86540
103860
630
114
59824