Citing the provisions of the Act a bank of Justice M. A Chowdhary noticed,

“On a harmonious interpretation of sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 15-A of the Act, it can be safely concluded that on filing an application for bail, in a case under SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities Act, the applicant or his dependent must be given notice or must be heard at the time of consideration of the bail plea.”

While canceling the bail granted earlier to one Rajesh Singh, an inspector accused of caste-based offences, the court pointed out that procedural rights of the applicant are essential to uphold justice in such sensitive cases.

Background of the case:

The case arose out of a complaint filed by Anu Bala, a deputy director in the Fisheries Department, alleging that Singh, her subordinate, not only subjected her to caste-based abuse but also acted inappropriately. Her complaint led to the registration of an FIR under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act at Nagrota Police Station, Jammu. The trial court later granted Singh bail, a decision which Bala challenged, citing procedural irregularities and Singh’s abuse of the judicial process.

Bala’s lawyer argued that Singh resorted to “forum shopping” by filing bail applications in two separate courts on the same day, noting that his original application was already pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge. This, she argued, enabled Singh to obtain bail by withholding material facts. In his defence, Singh’s lawyer argued that the bail was obtained legitimately and within legal parameters.

The Court’s observations:

Justice Chowdhary’s observations focused on ensuring procedural safeguards in cases under the SC/ST Act. He stated that on filing a bail application to be released in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the applicant or his dependent shall be served notice or must be heard at the time of examination bail plea.

Given this lack, the court held that the trial court’s failure to give Bala an opportunity to contest the bail application violated statutory requirements, compromising her rights as a plaintiff.

Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambi v. Satyanarayan (2021), to emphasize that atrocities against SC/ST persons persist and that statutory safeguards are imperative, the court held,

“Atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a thing of the past and continue to be a reality in society even today. Therefore, the statutory provisions, which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure to protect the constitutional rights of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, must be conscientiously followed and implemented.”

Justice Chowdhary criticized the lower court’s handling of the case, stating:

“If it cannot be described as a travesty of justice, it certainly amounts to undermining the fairness of justice, when the Sessions Court presided over by a very senior judicial officer has observed the mandatory statutory provisions under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15 -A of the Atrocities Act, in total violation and granted bail to the accused without issuing a notice to the victim/complainant and without giving her an opportunity to be heard.”

Additionally, the court took strong exception to Singh’s approach, identifying it as an example of “forum shopping or bank hunting”, noting that both bail applications were filed on the same day. Singh filed an application before the First Additional Sessions Judge, who adjourned the proceedings, while simultaneously approaching the Additional Sessions Court, which granted him anticipatory bail.

Justice Chowdhary noted that the accused had withdrawn his earlier application when in his subsequent application he had already been granted bail and noted:

“This speaks not only of the respondent’s conduct as an accused and a litigant, but also of the Court, which assigned his two applications on the same date to two different courts”

In light of these observations, the court set aside the impugned bail order and ordered Singh to surrender, while allowing him to reapply for bail under due process.

The court ordered that the judgment be forwarded to all the special courts dealing with SC/ST cases in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. In addition, a copy has been sent to the State Legal Services Authorities, urging the organization of seminars and legal literacy initiatives to sensitize the public about the rights of the SC/ST Act.

Case Title: Anu Bala Vs Rajesh Singh

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 298

Click here to read/download the Judgment