http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM KRISHNA BALOTHIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1995

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1198            1995 SCC  (3) 221  JT 1995 (2)   310        1995 SCALE  (1)658

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   Special leave granted 2.      These appeal by special have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and another against the judgment and order dated 25.3.1994 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is the  common  judgment governing all these appeals.   In  the petitions  which were filed by the respondents here,  before the  High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226  of  the Constitution,    the   respondents   had   challenged    the constitutional   validity  of  certain  provisions  of   the Scheduled   Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention   of Atrocities)  Act,  1989.  The High Court,  while  negativing this  challenge  in respect of some of the sections  of  the said  Act has however, held that Section 18 of the said  Act is unconstitutional since it violates Articles 14 and 21  of the  Constitution  of India- The present appeals  have  been filed  by  the  State of Madhya  Pradesh  to  challenge  the finding  of  the  Madhya Pradesh High  Court,in  respect  of section 18 of the said Act. 3.   Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 313 Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as follows:-               "Section  438  of  the Code not  to  apply  to               persons committing an offence under the  Act:-               Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply               in  relation to any case involving the  arrest               of  any  person  on an  accusation  of  having               committed an offence under this Act." 4.   Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  provides for  grant  of  bail to  persons  apprehending  arrest.   It provides,  inter  alia, that when any person has  reason  to apprehend that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed  a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the  High Court or to a Court of Sessions for a direction that in  the even of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.  We  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

to  consider  whether a denial of this right  to  apply  for anticipatory bail in respect of offences committed under the Scheduled   Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention   of Atrocities)  Act, 1 989, can be considered as  violative  of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 5.   The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes   (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter  referred to  as  ’the said  Act’)  was enacted in order to prevent the co  ion  of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  and to provide for special courts for the  trial  of offence under the said Act as also to provide for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of such offences.   "Atrocity" has been defined under Section 2 of the said Act to mean  an offence   punishable  under  Section  3(1).   Section   3(1) provides as follows:- "Punishments for offences of atrocities :- (1)  whoever,  not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or  a Scheduled Tribe-               (i)   forces a member of a Scheduled  Caste or               a Scheduled Tribe to drink or cat any inedible               or obnoxious substance:               (ii)acts  with intent to cause injury,  insult               or  annoyance  to any member  of  a  Scheduled               Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping  excreta               waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious               substance in his premises or neighbourhood;               (iii)forcibly, removes clothes from the person               of  a  member  of  a  Scheduled  Caste  or   a               Scheduled  Tribe or parades him naked or  with               painted  face or body or commits  any  similar               act which is derogatory to human dignity;               (iv)wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land               owned  by, or allotted to, or notified by  any               competent     authority to be allotted  to,  a               member  of  a Scheduled Caste or  a  Scheduled               Tribe  or  gets  the  land  allotted  to   him               transferred;               (v)   wrongfully  dispossesses a member  of  a               Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from  his               land  or  premises  or  interferes  with   the               enjoyment of his rights over any land premises               or water.               (vi)  Comples or entices a member of_    Scheduled               Caste  or a Scheduled  Tribe to do ’begar’  or               other  similar  forms of  forced    or  bonded               labour  other than any compulsory service  for               public purposes imposed by Government               (vii) forces  or  intimidates a  member  of  a               Scheduled   Caste or a Scheduled               314               Tribe  not to vote or to vote to a  particular               candidate  or to vote in a manner  other  then               that provide by law;               (viii)     institutes   false,  malicious   or               vexatious  suit  or criminal  or  other  legal               proceedings   against a member of a  Scheduled               Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;               (ix)  gives any false or frivolous information               to any public servant and thereby causes  such               public servant to use his lawful power to  the               injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled               Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;               (x)   intentionally  insults  or   intimidates               with  intent  to  humiliate  a  member  of   a               Scheduled  Caste or a Scheduled Tribe  in  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             place within public view;               (xi)  assaults  or  uses force  to  any  woman               belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a  Scheduled               Tribe  with intent to dishonor or outrage  her               modesty;               (xii) I  being in a position to  dominate  the               will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste               or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to               exploit  her sexually to which she  would  not               have otherwise agreed.               (xiii)     corrupts or fouls the water of  any               spring,   reservoir   or  any   other   source               ordinarily  used by members of  the  Scheduled               Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render               it  less fit for the purpose for which  it  is               ordinarily used               (xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste  or               a   Scheduled  Tribe   customary    right   of               passage  to  a  place  of  public  resort   or               obstructs such                member  so  as to prevent him from  using  or               having  access to a place of public resort  to               which  other members of public or any  section               thereof have a right to use or access to;               (xv)  forces or causes a member of a Scheduled               Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house,               village or other place of residence;               shall  be punishable with imprisonment  for  a               term  which shall not be less than six  months               but  which may extend to five years  and  with               fine". Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to any case involving arrest of any person accused of having committed any of the above offences. 6.   It is undoubtedly true that Section 438 of the Code  of Criminal  Procedure,  which is available to  an  accused  in respect  of offences under the Penal Code, is not  available in respect of offences under the said Act.  But can this  be considered  as violative of Article 14?  The  offences  enu- merated under the said Act fall into a separate and  special class.  Article 17 of the Constitution expressly deals  with abolition  of "Untouchability" and forbids its  practice  in any  form.   It  also  provides  that  enforcement  of   any disability  arising  out  of "Untouchability"  shall  be  an offence  punishable  in accordancewith law.   The  offences, therefore, which are enumerated under Section 3(1) arise out of the practice of "Untouchability".  It is in this  context that  certain special provisions have been made in the  said Act, including the impugned provision under Section 18 which -is before us.  The exclusion of Section 438 of the Code  of Criminal  Procedure  in connection with offences  under  the said  Act has to be viewed in the context of the  prevailing social conditions which give 315 rise     to    such    offences,    and    the     apprehen- Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible sub- sion  that  perpetrators of such atrocities  are  likely  to threaten  and  intimidate  their  victims  and  prevent   or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if  the offenders  are  allowed to avail of anticipatory  bail.   In this connection we may refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons  accompanying  the Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes  (Prevention of Atrocities) Bill, 1989, when  it  was introduced  in  Parliament.  It sets out  the  circumstances surrounding the enactment of the said Act and points to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

evil  which the statute sought to remedy.  In the  Statement of Objects and Reasons it is stated:-               Despite   various  measures  to  improve   the               socioeconomic  conditions  of  the   Scheduled               Castes  and the Scheduled Tribes, they  remain               vulnerable.   They are denied number of  civil               rights.    They  are  subjected   to   various               offences,    indignities,   humliations    and               harassment.   They  have,  in  several  brutal               incidents,  been  deprived of their  life  and               property.    Serious  crimes   are   committed               against  them for various  historical,  social               and economic reasons.               2............... When they assert their rights               and resist practices of untouchability against               than  or  demand statutory  minimum  wages  or               refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the               vested  interests  try to cow  them  down  and               terronse them.  When the Scheduled Castes  and               the  Scheduled  Tribes try to  preserve  their               self-respect  or honour of their  women,  they               become  irritants  for the  dominant  and  the               mighty.   Occupation and cultivation  of  even               the government allotted land by the  Scheduled               Castes  and Scheduled Tribes is  resented  and               more  often  these people  become  victims  of               attacks  by  the vested interests.   Of  late,               there  has been an increase in the  disturbing               trend of commission of certain atrocities like               making   the  Scheduled  Castes  persons   eat               inedible  sub-stances like human excreta.  and               attacks  on  and  mass  killings  of  helpless               Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes and rape               of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and               the  Schedules  Tribes....................   A               special legislation to check and deter  crimes               against them committed by non-Schedules Castes               and nonSchedules Tribes has, therefore, become               necessary. The   above  statement  graphically  describes  the   social conditions  which  motivated the said  legislation.   It  is pointed  out in the above Statement of Objects  and  Reasons that  when  members of the Schedules  Castes  and  Schedules 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 a distinct class  by  themselves and cannot be compared with other offences. 7.      We  have next to examine whether Section 18  of  the said  Act  violates,  in  any  manner,  Article  21  of  the Constitution which protects the life and personal liberty of every  person  in this country.  Article  21  enshrines  the right to live with human dignity, a precious right to  which every  human-being  is  entitled those who  have  been,  for centuries, denied this right, more so.  We find it difficult to  accept  the contention that Section 438 of the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure is an integral part of Article  21.   In the  first place, there was no provision similar to  Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code.  The Law  Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of provision for grant of 316 anticipatory ball.  It observed:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             "We   agree  that  this  would  be  a   useful               advantage.   Though we must add that it is  in               every exceptional cases that such power should               be exercised". In  the  light  of  this  recommendation,  Section  438  was incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal  Procedure Code of 1973.  Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law  Commission,  the power to grant  anticipatory  bail  is conferred  only  on a Court of Sessions or the  High  Court. Also,  anticipatory  bail cannot be granted as a  matter  of right.   It is essentially a statutory right conferred  long after the coming into force of the Constitution.  It  cannot be  considered as an essential ingredient of Article  21  of the  Constitution.   And its non-application  to  a  certain special  category  of  offences  cannot  be  considered   as violative of Article 21. 8.   Section   20(7)  of  the  Terrorists   and   Disruptive Activities  (Prevention)  Act, 1987 came  for  consideration before  this  Court in the case of kartar Singh  v.State  of Punjab  (JT  1994  (2)  SC  423).   Section  20(7)  of   the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,  1987 also  provides  that nothing in Section 438 of the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure  shall  apply in relation  to  any  case involving  arrest of any person of an accusation  of  having committed  an offence punishable under this Act or any  rule made  thereunder.  The language of Section 20(7)  is  almost identical  with the language of Section 18 of the  said  Act which  we are considering.  It was argued before this  Court in Kartar Singh’s Case (supra) that the right of an  accused to avail of anticipatory bail is an integral part of Article 21  of the Constitution and its removal from the  Terrorists and  Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987  would  be violative of Article 21.  This Court referred to the history of  introduction  of  Section 438 in the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  (paragraph 355) and said that there was  no  such provision in the old Criminal Procedure Code and it was  in- troduced  for  the first time in the present Code  of  1973. This  Court also pointed out that Section 438 is omitted  in the  State  of  U.P. by Section 9 of the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  (UP  Amendment)  Act,  1976,  with  effect   form 28.11.1975.  In  the  State of West  Bengal,  a  proviso  is inserted  to Section 438 (1) with effect from 24.11.1988  to the  effect  that  no  final  order  shall  be  made  on  an application  filed by the accused praying  for  anticipatory bail  in  relation  to an  offence  punishable  with  death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than  seven  days’ notice to present its case.   OA  similar provision is also introduced by the State of Orissa.   Where a  person  accused of a non-bailable offence  is  likely  to abscond  or otherwise misuse this liberty while on bail,  he will   have  no  justification  to  claim  the  benefit   of anticipatory   bail.    In  the  case  of   terrorists   and disruptists, there was every likelihood of their  absconding and misusing their liberty if released on anticipatory  bail and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in not extending the benefit of Section 438 to them.  This Court concluded:-               "further at the risk of repetition we may  add               that  Section  438 ’contains a  new  provision               incorporated  in the present Code  creating  a               new  right.  If that new right is taken  away,               can it be said that the removal of Section 438               is violative of Article 21........ Its  answer  was  in the negative.   Section  20(7)  of  the Terrorists and Disruptive 317

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was upheld. 9.   Of  course, the offences enumerated under  the  present case are very different from those under the Terrorists  and Disruptive  Activities  (Prevention)  Act,  1987.   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. 10.It  was  submitted before us that while  Section  438  is available  for graver offences under the Penal Code,  it  is not available for even "minor offences" under the said  Act. This grievance also cannot be justified.  The offences which are  enumerated under Section 3 are offences which,  to  say the  least,  denigrate  members  of  Scheduled  Castes   and Schedules  Tribes in the eyes of society, and  prevent  them from  leading  a  life of dignity  and  self-respect.   Such offences are committed to humiliate and subjugate members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with a view to keeping them in a state of secrvitude.  These offences constitute  a separate  class and cannot be compared with  offences  under the Penal Code. 11.  A  similar view of Section 18 of the said Act has  been taken  by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in  the Case  of  Jai  Singh and Anr. v. Union of  India  (AIR  1993 Rajasthan 117) and we respectfully agree with its findings. 12.  In the premises, Section 18 of the said Act  cannot  be considered  as  violative  of  Articles 14  and  21  of  the Constitution. 13.   The   appeals  are  accordingly   allowed.    In   the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 318