ਐਸ.ਸੀ. ਅਤੇ ਐਸ.ਟੀ. ਐਕਟ ਅਤੇ ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ (SC & ST Act and Anticipatory bail)

ਐਸ.ਸੀ. ਅਤੇ ਐਸ.ਟੀ. ਐਕਟ ਅਤੇ ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ (SC & ST Act and Anticipatory bail)

 1. The SC & ST Act ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਵੱਖਰੀ ਸ਼੍ਰੇਣੀ ਦੇ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਹਨ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਜ਼ੁਰਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਮ ਜ਼ੁਰਮਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਲਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ। The SC & ST Act ਦੀ ਧਾਰਾ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨ ਦੀ ਆਰਟੀਕਲ 14 ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦੇ।

Case: State of M.P. and another Vs.Ram Kishna Balothia and another, 1995 Crl.L.J. 2076 (SC)

Para “6. ….. It is pointed out in the above Statement of Objects and Reasons that when members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection, vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. In these circumstances, if anticipatory bail is not made available to persons who commit such offences, such a denial cannot be considered as unreasonable or violative of Article 14, as these offences form distinct class by themselves and cannot be compared with other offences.”

2. ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਜਿਉਂਦਾ ਰਹਿਣ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ (right to life) ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਤੱਤ (ingredient) ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। The SC & ST Act ਦੀ ਧਾਰਾ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨ ਸੰਵਿਧਾਨ ਦੀ ਆਰਟੀਕਲ 21 ਦੀ ਉਲੰਘਣਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦੇ।

Case: State of M.P. and another Vs.Ram Kishna Balothia and another, 1995 Crl.L.J. 2076 (SC)

Para “7. ….. We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. …”

Para “9. ….. However, looking to the historical background relating to the practice of “Untouchability” and the social attitudes which lead to the commission of such offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is justification for an apprehension that if the benefit of anticipatory bail is made available to the persons who are alleged to have committed such offences. There is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent a proper investigation. It is in this context that Section 18 has been incorporated in the said Act. It cannot be considered as in any manner violative of Article 21.”

3. ਜੇ ਐਫ.ਆਈ.ਆਰ. ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਇਬਾਰਤ ਤੋਂ The SC & ST Act ਅਧੀਨ ਹੋਏ ਕਿਸੇ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਦਾ ਸਿੱਟਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੱਖ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਨਿਕਲਦਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਧਾਰਾ 438 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਤਹਿਤ ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ।

Case: Virindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Crl.L.J. 2899 (Rajsthan – HC, FB)

Para “18. ….. To put it differently, once it is apparent from the FIR that an offence under the Act of 1989 is even alleged, the Courts would not be justified at all in weighing or scrutinising the preponderance of the probability of commission of the offence by the accused. …….”

4. ਜੇ ਐਫ.ਆਈ.ਆਰ. ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਇਬਾਰਤ ਵਿੱਚ The SC & ST Act ਅਧੀਨ ਹੋਏ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਧਾਰਾ 438 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਤਹਿਤ ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case: Virindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Crl.L.J. 2899

“18. …… But if from the FIR itself the ingredients of offence as laid down under Sec.3 of the Act itself is found to be missing, the bar created by Sec.18 would not be allowed to operate against an accused and only in that event his application for anticipatory bail would be dealt with by the concerned Court to determine whether the Act of 1989 can be said to be rightly applicable against the accused. …..”

5. ਅਦਾਲਤ ਨੂੰ ਐਫ.ਆਈ.ਆਰ. ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਦੋਸ਼ਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੱਚਾਈ ਜਾਨਣ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੇ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ‘ਹੋਰ ਪੜਤਾਲ’ (further inquiry) ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case: Virindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Crl.L.J. 2899

“18. ……. “And (the Court) not to enter into further enquiry into the matter so as to determine whether the allegations levelled against the accused in the FIR are true or false and there would be no justification to enter into the matter further in order to examine whether the allegations levelled against the accused are even prima facie correct or incorrect. ……”

6. ਐਫ.ਆਈ.ਆਰ. ਜਾਂ ਸ਼ਿਕਾਇਤ ਵਿੱਚ The SC & ST Act ਦੀਆਂ ਧਾਰਾਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਹੋਣ ਜਾਂ ਨਾ ਹੋਣ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਮਹੱਤਵ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਬਾਰਤ ਦਾ ਸਮੁੱਚਾ ਸਿੱਟਾ ਕੀ ਨਿਕਲਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : K. Mallesham v/s State of A.P. 1999 Cri.L.J.324 (AP-HC)

Para “15. ….. The crucial question would be as to whether the contents of the complaint or the FIR would attract the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Mere mention or non-mention of the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is of no consequence. In a given case, the contents of the allegations may attract the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, though there is no such mention of the provisions at the time of registration of the crime. Likewise, the allegations in the FIR or the complaint may not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, at all, though a mention is made in the FIR of those provisions. What is required is a pragmatic assessment of the contents of the complaint in every given case...”