The court reaffirmed that, where the Supreme Court has upheld an interim bail order in the face of a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the High Court may confirm and make such interim bail absolute, provided there is no allegation of its misuse. This decision applies prevailing precedent to unique factual circumstances, with binding value within the Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction for cases involving similar facts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/12218/2020 of BIJENDER AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC010371462020 |
| Date of Registration | 12-05-2020 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana; cites affirmed Supreme Court order |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms interim bail earlier granted and confirmed by Supreme Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, interpretation of SC/ST Act and Section 438 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether interim anticipatory bail can be confirmed when Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars such relief, especially if the Supreme Court has upheld such interim protection |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of its interim bail order and absence of any misuse of bail, it could make absolute the earlier bail order, notwithstanding Section 18 SC/ST Act. The decision is narrowly tailored to the specific FIR and fact situation. The safeguard against blanket relief and liberty to recall the order is expressly noted. The order explicitly states no opinion is formed on the merits of the case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The jurisprudence includes interpreting the effect of Supreme Court affirmance and established bar under Section 18 SC/ST Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners faced arrest in FIR No.332/2018 (Sections 120-B, 153-A, 504, 505, 506 IPC, and various SC/ST Act sections). Bail was previously denied due to Section 18. The High Court granted interim bail, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. No evidence of misuse of bail was noted. Order confirmed regular bail, with express mention that it is not a blanket order and confined to the particular FIR. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court when considering proper confirmation of interim bail under similar circumstances |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- If the Supreme Court has affirmed an interim bail order, the High Court may confirm and regularize that bail, even if Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would otherwise bar anticipatory bail.
- The order confirming bail is strictly confined to the facts of the specific FIR and should not be treated as a blanket protection.
- Bail may be revisited for cancellation/recall upon future violation of bail terms, per directions in the judgment.
- The court expressly notes that its order shall not be taken to reflect an opinion on merits.
- Lawyers should highlight the Supreme Court’s affirmation of interim bail when seeking confirmation in similar cases under statutory bars.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recounted the history: bail was initially refused due to Section 18’s bar, but interim protection was granted by the High Court.
- The Supreme Court, upon challenge, refused to interfere with the grant of interim bail, noting cooperation with trial and peace in the village.
- Given the highest court’s non-interference and finding no misuse of bail, the High Court confirmed the regular bail, despite the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act.
- Express limitations were articulated: bail order is not blanket nor indefinite, and is strictly confined to the impugned FIR.
- Liberty was reserved to the State or complainant for recall/cancellation if breach occurs.
- The court provided that nothing in its order shall be construed as an expression on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Bail was originally refused only because of the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
- Allegations in FIR are a counter-blast to earlier FIR filed by a petitioner.
- High Court had already issued interim bail, and Supreme Court affirmed that order.
- Petitioners have not misused the concession of interim bail.
Respondent (State/Complainant)
- Cited Supreme Court decisions (Prithvi Raj Chauhan; Union of India v. State of Maharashtra) establishing that anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
- Asserted the seriousness of the allegations (social boycott of Scheduled Caste community).
- No objection to continuation of bail given cooperation and peace.
Factual Background
FIR No. 332 dated 01.11.2018 was registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, Hisar, against the petitioners for alleged offences under specified IPC sections and multiple sections of the SC/ST Act, including allegations of declaring social boycott of the Scheduled Caste community in the village. The petitioners’ anticipatory bail was initially rejected due to the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The High Court granted ad-interim bail, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. There was no allegation that the petitioners had misused the bail concession.
Statutory Analysis
The court considered the effect of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which expressly bars grant of anticipatory bail to persons accused of offences under the Act. However, in the factual context where the Supreme Court had affirmed an interim bail order, the High Court held it had jurisdiction to confirm and make the bail absolute, strictly within the confined facts of the FIR. The Cr.P.C. procedural requirements for grant of regular bail were also noted as applicable.
Procedural Innovations
- The court clarified that a bail order under similar statutory bar, once affirmed by the Supreme Court, may be confirmed as regular bail.
- Explicit procedure for recall/cancellation of bail on State/complainant’s application was noted.
- Strict confining of the order to the FIR in question, excluding general or blanket protection.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and applies the precedent set by the Supreme Court in affirming interim bail, and applicable jurisprudence on Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.