Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Before parting with the case, the Court also suggested that the lawmakers consider framing a scheme to harness the potential of accused persons for the advantage of society by giving training in disaster/relief operations
The Madhya Pradesh high court had occasion to clarify certain aspects of the law concerning the cancellation of bail in cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Justice Anand Pathak has held:
Exercising powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the supreme court is empowered to cancel bail granted to an individual accused under the SC/ST Act;
In cases where an individual is accused of offences under the SC/ST Act also because the Protection of youngsters from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the trial procedure under the POCSO Act will prevail;
In a case involving charges under both the SC/ST Act and therefore the POCSO Act, if a special POCSO Act grants of rejects bail, an appeal challenging such an order can only be shifted under Section 439, CrPC and not Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST Act.
Factual Background
The Court was handling an application moved by a father to cancel the bail granted a person accused of getting kidnapped his then 16-year-old daughter, who belonged to a Scheduled community (Smt. Sunita Gandharva v. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr).
The accused man's first bail application under Section 439, CrPC was set aside by the court .
The victim's father later moved an application alleging that the accused had contacted his daughter again and tried to run away together with her , in violation of the High Court's bail conditions. Therefore, the supreme court was urged to cancel the bail granted to the accused.
Any interpretation which restricts the proper of the victim to approach the high court just in case a bail condition is violated would be against the very spirit of the SC/ST Amendment Act.
A victim can't be rendered remediless, albeit the accused gets bail under Section 439 of CrPC. and keeps on interfering within the investigation or trial and intimidating the victim or the witnesses.
bail conditions imposed under the SC/ST Act need to be complied with by the accused more stringently.
Ultimately, the Court has the facility to recall an order which has been gone by it earlier.
The Court proceeded to look at which provision would be applicable in matters concerning bail where the case involves both SC/ST Act also as POCSO Act offences.
In this regard, the Judge noted that the POCSO Act provisions appear to possess an overriding effect over provisions of the SC/ST Act, given the POCSO Act's legislative intent, the statement of objects and reasons, the language of its provisions and therefore the wider amplitude of the POCSO law.
the supreme court proceeded to look at the bail provisions applicable in POCSO trials. During this regard, it took note of Section 31 of the POCSO Act which as long as provisions of the CrPC would be applicable in trials under this Act. This apart.
Given the questions of law clarified during this case, a replica of the judgment has also been directed to be placed before the Acting judge of the Court in order that it's going to be circulated among subordinate judges for information and compliance.
An additional aspect deliberated upon by the supreme court concerned the scope of the conditions which will be imposed by High Courts during the grant of bail under Section 439, CrPC.
Referring to various precedents on the topic , Justice Pathak observed that the high court is conferred with significant discretion to impose such bail conditions as needed within the interest of justice, and counting on the facts of the case.
Ultimately, the application to cancel the bail granted to the accused was rejected considering that:
In view of the stage at which the investigation is presently in, relegating the accused to jail would not serve the cause of justice.
The prosecutrix herself is not living with her parents. Rather, she is living at One Stop Centre. Her statements did not indicate that she had left to meet the accused.
The accused is trying to come out of his stigmatic past by complying other bail conditions and performing community service as a reformatory measure.
The Judge added that another application to cancel bail may be moved if there is any grievance that the accused is actually harassing or embarrassing the victim.
Advocate HK Shukla appeared for the applicant. Advocate CP Singh appeared for the State. Advocate Gaurav Mishra appeared for the accused.
Senior Advocate NK Gupta assisted the Court as the amicus curiae, along with Advocates Ravi Gupta, Vijay Dutt Sharma, Atul Gupta and Sameer Kumar Shrivastava.
86540
103860
630
114
59824