Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.595  OF 2013 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.8490 OF 2012)  

SHAKUNTLA DEVI  APPELLANT

                VERSUS

BALJINDER SINGH                           RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. By  the  impugned  judgment  dated  31.01.2012  passed  in  

Criminal  Misc.No.M-17586  of  2011,  the  High  Court  has  granted  

anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,  

1973 to the respondent in Complaint Case No.38/1 dated 30.07.2010,  

under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984 and Sections 323, 354, 388 and  

506  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  registered  with  P.S.Model  

Town,Panipat (Haryana).

4. We  find  that  Section  18  of  the  Scheduled   Castes  and  

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984 provides that  

nothing in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure 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.  This Court  

has  also  held  in  Vilas  Pandurang  Pawar  &  Anr. Vs.  State  of  

Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2012 (8) SCALE, 577 that Section 18  

of the Act creates a specific bar to the grant of anticipatory bail  

to a   person   against   whom  any offence is registered under the

Page 2

: 2 :

provisions  of  the  aforesaid  Act  and,  therefore  no  Court  shall  

entertain  an  application  for  anticipatory  bail  unless  it,  prima  

facie, finds that  an offence under the Act is not made out.

5. The High Court has not given any finding in the impugned  

order  that  an  offence  under  the  aforesaid  Act  is  not  made  out  

against the respondent and has granted anticipatory bail, which is  

contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act as  

well as the aforesaid decision of this Court in  Vilas Panduranga  

Pawar & Anr. case (supra).

6. Hence, without going into the merits of the allegations  

made against the respondent, we set aside the impugned order of the  

High Court granting bail to the respondent.  

Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly.

...........................J. (A.K. PATNAIK)

...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI; APRIL 15, 2013