Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 March, 2018

* S.N.Choudhary-Lucknow.

The question which has arisen in the course of consideration is whether any unilateral allegation of mala fide can be ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in official capacity and if such allegation is falsely made what is protection available against such abuse.

Needless to say that if the allegation is to be acted upon, the proceedings can result in arrest or prosecution of the person and have serious consequences on his right to liberty even on a false complaint which may not be intended by law meant for protection of a bona fide victim.

The question is whether this will be just and fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or there can be procedural safeguards so that provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not abused for extraneous considerations.

Denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section.


Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail.

Guidelines to be followed, for protection against arbitrary arrests or false implications in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Magistrate must verify the averments in a Complaint/FIR to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out and whether arrest was necessary and only then arrest should be made or continued.

The Atrocities Act is also prone to misuse on account of monetary incentive being available merely for lodging a case under Rule 12(4) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

Such incentive may encourage not only genuine victims but, there being no safeguard even against a false case being registered only to get the monetary incentive, such false cases may be filed without any remedy to the affected person.

Jurisdiction of this Court to issue appropriate orders or directions for enforcement of fundamental rights is a basic feature of the Constitution.

This Court, as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, has to uphold the constitutional rights and values. Articles 14, 19 and 21 represent the foundational values which form the basis of the rule of law. Contents of the said rights have to be interpreted in a manner which enables the citizens to enjoy the said rights.

Right to equality and life and liberty have to be protected against any unreasonable procedure, even if it is enacted by the legislature. The substantive as well as procedural laws must conform to Articles 14 and 21. Any abrogation of the said rights has to be nullified by this Court by appropriate orders or directions.

Power of the legislature has to be exercised consistent with the fundamental rights. Enforcement of a legislation has also to be consistent with the fundamental rights. Undoubtedly, this Court has jurisdiction to enforce the fundamental rights of life and liberty against any executive or legislative action. The expression ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 implies just, fair and reasonable procedure24.

Guidelines given in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar & D.K. Basu versus State of W.B. are to be strictly followed by the police.

Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case.

The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

In case the arrest is imperative, according to the facts of the case, in that event, the arresting officer must clearly record the reasons for the arrest of the accused before the arrest in the case diary, but in exceptional cases where it becomes imperative to arrest the accused immediately, the reasons be recorded in the case diary immediately after the arrest is made without loss of any time so that the court has an opportunity to properly consider the case for grant or refusal of bail in the light of reasons recorded by the arresting officer.

In the present context, wisdom of legislature in creating an offence cannot be questioned but individual justice is a judicial function depending on facts. As a policy, anticipatory bail may be excluded but exclusion cannot be intended to apply where a patently malafide version is put forward.

Courts have inherent jurisdiction to do justice and this jurisdiction cannot be intended to be excluded. Thus, exclusion of Court’s jurisdiction is not to be read as absolute.

There can be no dispute with the proposition that mere unilateral allegation by any individual belonging to any caste, when such allegation is clearly motivated and false, cannot be treated as enough to deprive a person of his liberty without an independent scrutiny.

Thus, exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail cannot possibly, by any reasonable interpretation, be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations are patently false or motivated. If this interpretation is not taken, it may be difficult for public servants to discharge their bona fide functions and, in given cases, they can be black mailed with the threat of a false case being registered under the Atrocities Act, without any protection of law. This cannot be the scenario in a civilized society.

Similarly, even a non public servant can be black mailed to surrender his civil rights. This is not the intention of law. Such law cannot stand judicial scrutiny. It will fall foul of guaranteed fundamental rights of fair and reasonable procedure being followed if a person is deprived of life and liberty. Thus, literal interpretation cannot be preferred in the present situation.

Applying the above well known principle, we hold that the exclusion of Section 438 Cr.P.C. applies when a prima facie case of commission of offence under the Atrocities Act is made. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the allegations are prima facie motivated and false, such exclusion will not apply.

Whether a torch which is lighted to dispel the darkness can it be permitted to set on fire the innocent surroundings? Whether a knife an instrument which is meant for saving human life by using the same in the course of operation by a surgeon, can it be permitted to be used in taking the life of some innocent?

The very same fundamental question arises in the facts and circumstances of this case also, viz., ‘whether any statute like the present Atrocities Act, especially enacted for the purposes of protecting weaker sections of the society hailing from S.C. & S.T. communities can be permitted to be abused by conveniently converting the same into a weapon of wrecking personal vengeance on the opponents?’ The answer to this question is undoubtedly and obviously ‘No’.

Under such circumstances, if the Courts are to apply such provision of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act quite mechanically and blindly merely guided by some general and popular prejudices based on some words and tricky accusations in the complaint on mere assumptions without intelligently scrutinising and testing the probabilities, truthfulness, genuineness and otherwise dependability of the accusations in the complaint etc., then it would be simply unwittingly and credulously playing in the hands of some scheming unscrupulous complainant in denying the justice.

Virtually, it would be tentamount to abdicating and relegating its judicial duty, fanction of doing justice in such matters in favour and hands of such unscrupulous complainant by making him a Judge in his own cause. This is simply unthinkable and therefore impermissible.

Whether the provisions of any particular Act and for that purpose the rules made thereunder are applicable to the facts of a particular case or not, is always and unquestionably a matter which lies strictly and exclusively within the domain of ‘judicial consideration-discretion’ and therefore neither mere allegations made in the complainant by themselves nor bare denials by the accused can either automatically vest or divest the Court from discharging its ultimate judicial function-duty to closely scrutinise and test the prima facie dependability of the allegations made in the complaint and reach its own decision.

Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail will not apply when no prima facie case is made out or the case is patently false or mala fide. This may have to be determined by the Court concerned in facts and circumstances of each case in exercise of its judicial discretion.

In doing so, we are reiterating a well established principle of law that protection of innocent against abuse of law is part of inherent jurisdiction of the Court being part of access to justice and protection of liberty against any oppressive action such as mala fide arrest.

In doing so, we are not diluting the efficacy of Section 18 in deserving cases where Court finds a case to be prima facie genuine warranting custodial interrogation and pre-trial arrest and detention.

Law laid down by this Court in Joginder Kumar (supra), Arnesh Kumar (supra), Rini Johar (supra), Siddharam Satlingappa (supra) to check uncalled for arrest cannot be ignored and clearly applies to arrests under the Atrocities Act. Protection of innocent is as important as punishing the guilty.

We are of the view that cases under the Atrocities Act also fall in exceptional category where preliminary inquiry must be held. Such inquiry must be time-bound and should not exceed seven days in view of directions in Lalita Kumari (supra).

Accordingly, we direct that in absence of any other independent offence calling for arrest, in respect of offences under the Atrocities Act, no arrest may be effected, if an accused person is a public servant, without written permission of the appointing authority and if such a person is not a public servant, without written permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District.

Such permissions must be granted for recorded reasons which must be served on the person to be arrested and to the concerned court. As and when a person arrested is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must apply his mind to the reasons recorded and further detention should be allowed only if the reasons recorded are found to be valid.

To avoid false implication, before FIR is registered, preliminary enquiry may be made whether the case falls in the parameters of the Atrocities Act and is not frivolous or motivated.

Back to top button