The judgment upholds the principle that when the Supreme Court has affirmed an interim order of bail in an SC/ST Act offence, the High Court may convert such interim bail into regular bail, provided bail conditions are not misused. This reaffirms existing precedent and clarifies the limited scope and effect of such protection.
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 jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the interim bail and Supreme Court affirmation |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Code of Criminal Procedure) |
| Questions of Law | Whether interim/anticipatory bail can be converted into regular bail after Supreme Court affirmation in offences under the SC/ST Act |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court, having granted interim bail in a case under the SC/ST Act, is justified in making that bail absolute when the Supreme Court has affirmed such interim protection, and there has been no violation of bail conditions by the petitioner. The regular bail order is to be limited strictly in scope to the specific FIR and does not constitute a “blanket” order. Liberty remains with the State or complainant to seek cancellation if warranted. The High Court’s decision does not decide the merits of the case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | Upholding Supreme Court affirmation of bail; limited scope of bail in SC/ST Act offences as set by cited Supreme Court decisions |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners, booked for alleged offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, sought anticipatory bail denied by Sessions Judge due to Section 18 bar; Supreme Court affirmed interim bail granted by High Court; no misuse of bail condition alleged; current order makes bail absolute. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar post-SC affirmation bail situations in SC/ST (POA) Act |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that once the Supreme Court has affirmed an interim bail granted under the SC/ST Act, the High Court can regularize and make such protection absolute.
- Clarifies that the bail order is not a “blanket” protection – its operation is restricted only to the FIR in question.
- Reiterates that the State or complainant retains liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon violation of any conditions prescribed.
- Emphasises that the High Court does not pronounce on the merits of the allegations while deciding such bail petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, as acknowledged by the Sessions Judge.
- It considered the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the interim bail granted to the petitioners, citing the ongoing cooperation with the investigation and the absence of disturbances.
- The Court relied on relevant Supreme Court judgments (Prithvi Raj Chauhan and Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra), which regulate the grant of anticipatory bail in such cases.
- Since no allegation of misuse of interim bail was present, and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere, the High Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail subject to standard conditions.
- The bail order expressly limits its scope to the particular FIR and does not constitute a general protection from future arrest.
- Liberty was saved for the State/complainant to seek recall or cancellation if required.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The denial of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge was solely because Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars such relief.
- The prior FIR had led to a charge sheet only against one individual, while the present FIR was a counterblast to an earlier petitioner’s FIR.
- Petitioners have not misused the concession of interim bail.
State
- Referred to Supreme Court rulings that anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
Complainant
- Argued, citing Supreme Court authorities, that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to accused in such offences.
Factual Background
Petitioners were accused in FIR No.332 dated 01.11.2018 at Police Station Sadar Hansi, District Hisar, for offences under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Sessions Judge declined anticipatory bail due to Section 18 of the Act. The High Court granted interim bail, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. At the time of the decision, there was no allegation of misuse of the interim bail order.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: The Court acknowledged its bar on the grant of anticipatory bail for offences under the Act.
- Code of Criminal Procedure: Bail granted subject to conditions under the Cr.P.C.
- The Court applied a narrow interpretation in confining its order strictly to the particular FIR, consistent with statute and precedent.
Procedural Innovations
- Order clarifies that interim anticipatory bail, once affirmed by the Supreme Court, can be converted into regular bail by the High Court if there is no breach of conditions.
- The order explicitly disclaims being a “blanket” protection, restricting its effect to the specific FIR and setting a clear procedural boundary.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed