Anticipatory bail restrictions under the atrocities law upheld, while arrest-approval requirements lacked statutory basis.

Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was examined against Articles 14, 15, 17 and 21, and the statutory exclusion of anticipatory bail was treated as a justified special measure to protect victims from intimidation. The amendment was upheld, and the Court noted that preliminary enquiry is not generally required where a cognizable offence is disclosed, though inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains available in exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out. Requiring approval of the appointing authority or SSP before arrest, and related Magistrate scrutiny, had no statutory basis and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the associated restrictions on anticipatory bail, preliminary enquiry, and arrest approval were unconstitutional or otherwise liable to be struck down.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was examined in the light of the constitutional protection afforded to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 14, 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had already been upheld as a special measure justified by the social context and the need to protect victims from intimidation and obstruction. The amendment introducing Section 18A was enacted to respond to earlier directions requiring preliminary enquiry and approval for arrest, but those directions had already been recalled in review. It was held that a preliminary enquiry is not generally required where a cognizable offence is disclosed, and that the inherent power of the High Court remains available in exceptional cases where the complaint does not disclose a prima facie offence. The Court further held that requiring approval of the appointing authority or the SSP before arrest, and the consequential scrutiny by the Magistrate, had no statutory basis and could not stand. At the same time, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 continues to be available on settled parameters to prevent misuse in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The challenge to the amendment failed. Section 18A was not struck down, the bar against anticipatory bail under the Act remained operative subject to the absence of a prima facie case, and the petitions were disposed of.

---