Appeal against bail granted by the Special Court to the accused in an S.C.S.T. Act case. The High Court held that while anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18, regular bail distinctions warrant immunity from indefinite incarceration. The appeal was dismissed.
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.
Neeta Sawant 33-CRI.APPEAL-1284-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1284 OF 2024
Dr. Dhurandhar Raghunath Katke ….Appellant
: Versus :
Girija Shankar Pandey & Anr. ….Respondents
Mr. Sunil Lahane , a/w. Ms. Mekhala Mone i/by. The Juris Partners, for the Appellant.
Mr. Shilpa G. Talhar, App For the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 16 DECEMBER 2024.
P.C. :
Page No. 1 of 2 _ __ 16 December 2024
33-CRI.APPEAL-1284-2024.docx
Neeta Sawant
In my view, the considerations for grant of anticipatory bail would stand on a completely different footing than the one for grant of regular bail. There is a bar under the provisions of Section 18 of the S.C.S.T. Act for grant of anticipatory bail and in the case where prima-facie offences under the provisions of S.C.S.T. Act are made out, Courts are precluded from granting anticipatory bail in view of bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act. In the present case, after rejection of anticipatory bail by this Court on 8 October 2024, Respondent No.1 was apparently arrested and kept in custody for a period of more than a month. Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR, Respondent No.1 cannot otherwise be kept incarcerated for indefinite period of time. The learned Special Judge has rightly exercised the discretion in granting regular bail to Respondent No.1. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference in the order passed by the learned Special Judge. Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.12.18 20:25:38 +0530
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No. 2 of 2 _ __ 16 December 2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail granted by the Special Court despite the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 warrants court interferen
Whether the difference in legal footing between anticipatory and regular bail justifies setting aside the lower court's regularization of the release.
Whether the learned Special Judge exercised discretion correctly in granting bail to the accused in a case involving offences under the S.C.S.T. Act.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Dhurandhar Raghunath Katke
Girija Shankar Pandey & Anr.
SANDEEP V. MARNE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
