Andhra Pradesh High Court: In the present case, a reference was made by the Single Judge, while considering the anticipatory bail applications. One of the questions that arose for adjudication was regarding maintainability of anticipatory bail applications, in cases where alleged offences did not attract the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’).
The Division Bench of K. Suresh Reddy* and V. Sujatha, JJ., held that if prima facie case is not made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, then the application for anticipatory bail made under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is maintainable only before the High Court and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act. Further, the Court opined that the High Court shall retain its concurrent as well as original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act when no prima facie case is made out. Hence, the Court directed the case to be placed before an appropriate Bench for adjudication in accordance with law.
Background
Certain criminal petitions were listed before a Single Judge Bench of the present Court wherein a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was raised. It was contended that the Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act puts an embargo on the High Court from hearing the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of CrPC.
During the course of hearing, the Single Judge expressed his view contrary to the view taken in the various judgments of the present Court, wherein the High Court refrained from exercising its original jurisdiction to entertain such applications under provisions of SC/ST Act. Therefore, in the light of the divergent opinions of the co-ordinate Single Benches of the present Court, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice with a request to refer the matter to the Division Bench to resolve the above issues. Consequently, the Chief Justice constituted the instant Bench to decide the following issues.
Analysis and Decision
Issue 1: Whether anticipatory bail application is maintainable exclusively before Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, when the alleged offence does not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act?
Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act puts a bar on the Courts from hearing the anticipatory bail when an offence is registered under the said Act. The Court pointed out that in the judgment of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 the Supreme Court had clearly stated that when the prima facie case is not made out under the Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act then the accused can approach the High Court under Section 438 of CrPC seeking the anticipatory bail. However, once the prima facie case is made out, the bar created under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act would be attracted.
Therefore, The Court opined that when a prima facie case is not made out, the application for anticipatory bail shall be maintainable under Section 438 of CrPC before the High Court only and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Issue 2: Whether the High Court retains its concurrent and original jurisdiction under Section 438 of the CrPC to entertain such applications where the alleged offence does not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act?
The Court opined that a combined reading of Section 2(bd), 2(d), 14, 18 and 18-A of SC/ST Act, entrenches the view that the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, constituted under said Act, would acquire jurisdiction only when the prima facie case is made out against the accused. Once, prima facie case is not made out, the jurisdiction of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court pertaining to applications filed for anticipatory bail would be ousted and it will not have power under Section 438 of CrPC due to the embargo put upon the Courts under Section 18 and 18-A of SC/ST Act.
Therefore, when no prima facie case is made out against the accused, the petitioner shall approach the High Court under Section 438 of CrPC. In such a scenario the High Court would retain both original jurisdiction under Section 438 of CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of SC/ST Act. Accordingly, the Court held that when prima facie case is not made out under the provisions of the Act, then the application for anticipatory bail made under Section 438 of CrPC is maintainable only before the High Court and not before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court constituted under the Act. Additionally, the Court opined that when no case is made out under the provisions of the said Act, the High Court shall retain its concurrent as well as original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and under Section 14A of the Act. Hence, the Court directed the registry to place the reference order before the Chief Justice, so that the same could be placed before an appropriate Bench for adjudication in accordance with law.
[Vidadala Rajani v. State of A.P., Crl. P. 1461 of 2025, decided on: 19-9-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice K. Suresh Reddy
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for the Petitioners- S. Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate; Public Prosecutor