The High Court held that a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against a bail rejection order passed by a Sessions Judge acting as a Special Court under the SC/ST Act, as the said order is final subject to a specific appeal under the SC/ST Act.
The bail application was dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37327 of 2018
Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Vinod in connection with Case Crime No. 99 of 2017, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur.
The applicant approached the learned Sessions Judge, Hapur seeking bail, who rejected the prayer by his order dated 27.3.2018. Now, the present application under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that by virtue of Government Order dated 23rd November, 1991, issued by the Governor, in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act, as it then stood, it has been provided that the Sessions Judge of District Courts mentioned in the said order, and of such other districts, where the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge has not been created, or lying in abeyance, or is vacant for any reason, whatsoever, shall be the Special Court of their respective districts, to try offences under the SC/ST Act. This being the situation, the Court called for a report from the Sessions Judge, Hapur, as to whether the Sessions Judge was notified as a Special Court under the SC/ST Act, by order dated 01.10.2018. The Sessions Judge, Hapur filed a report dated 3rd October, 2018, has informed this Court that since there is no Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge in the district of Hapur, and, there is just one Additional Sessions Judge, besides the Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge is the notified Court
under the SC/ST Act. It is so to the understanding of this Court by virtue of the notification dated 23rd November, 1991 issued by His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. Since the bail rejection order dated 27.03.2018 has been passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hapur, exercising powers as a Special Court under the SC/ST Act, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14A(2) the said order is final subject to an appeal under the provisions of the SC/ST Act as Amended vide Act No. 01 of 2016. No bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. would, therefore, be maintainable.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the applicant to pursue such remedies as may be advised under the law. The certified free copy of the bail rejection order, and other certified copies annexed to this bail application, be returned to the learned counsel for the applicant forthwith, after retaining photostat copies of the same, attested by the learned counsel.
Order Date :- 17.12.2018 BKM/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bail application filed directly under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the rejection order was passed by a Sessions Judge exercising special powers under the SC/ST Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod
Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
