<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (2) TMI 469 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283076</link>
    <description>Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 validly excludes anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under that Act. The Supreme Court upheld the bar as a constitutionally permissible classification, treating such offences as a distinct class rooted in the social evil of untouchability and the need to protect victims. It found a rational nexus between the exclusion and the legislative object of preventing intimidation, misuse of bail, and obstruction of investigation. The Court also held that anticipatory bail is a statutory remedy under the CrPC and not an essential component of Article 21. The exclusion was therefore held not to violate Articles 14 or 21.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2019 10:05:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=586271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 469 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283076</link>
      <description>Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 validly excludes anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under that Act. The Supreme Court upheld the bar as a constitutionally permissible classification, treating such offences as a distinct class rooted in the social evil of untouchability and the need to protect victims. It found a rational nexus between the exclusion and the legislative object of preventing intimidation, misuse of bail, and obstruction of investigation. The Court also held that anticipatory bail is a statutory remedy under the CrPC and not an essential component of Article 21. The exclusion was therefore held not to violate Articles 14 or 21.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>