Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) All the above bail applications and criminal appeal (defective) relate to the offences under various sections of I.P.C. read with offences under various sections of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 (hereinafter referred as "S.C./S.T. Act") having been moved/filed upon rejection of bail applications by the Special Courts under (S.C./S.T. Act). Undisputedly, by Amendment Act No.1 of 2016, provisions of Sections 14-A and 15-A etc. were added/inserted in the S.C./S.T Act which came into force w.e.f. 26.01.2016, which provide that against every order passed by the Special Judge under S.C./S.T. Act granting or refusing bail, an appeal shall lie before this Court.
(2.) Before coming to the main question under consideration. The brief facts of the four cases mentioned above are necessary to be mentioned as follows. (i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38755 of 2017 relates to an incident dated 22.1.2016 regarding which F.I.R. was lodged on 24.1.2016 for the offences under sections 376(d) 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, wherein bail application of applicants was rejected vide order dated 14.7.2017 and the accused persons/applicants, feeling aggrieved filed Criminal Appeal No.4173 of 2017 under section 14 A (2) of S.C./S.T. Act in August, 2017. The Single Judge Bench of this Court, considering the fact that incident has taken place on 22.1.2016, prior to enforcement of newly inserted provisions of appeal under section 14 A (2) of S.C./S.T. Act, vide its order dated 22.9.2017, held the appeal not maintainable and in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. ordered to treat it as bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., in view of judgment passed by it on 25.8.2017 in the case of Janardan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No.2943 of 2017. (ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38324 of 2017 relates to an offence dated 11.6.2016 in which F.I.R. was lodged on 14.6.2016 for the offences under sections 363, 366, 506 and 376 IPC, ¾ POCSO Act and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and the bail application of accused was rejected by court below on 8.11.2016, feeling aggrieved with which, the accused moved a bail application no.44061 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on 6.9.2017 as not pressed, to seek appropriate remedy and after rejection of first bail application as not pressed, the accused instead of filing appeal under section 14-A(2) again moved this application for bail on 14.9.2017, in view of the judgment of a Single Judge Bench of this Court passed on 29.8.2017 in Rohit Vs. State of U.P., 2017 101 AllCriC 242, wherein it was held that after expiry of 180 days from the date of order rejecting bail, the appeal under section 14 A (2) of S.C./S.T. Act may not be entertained and the accused shall acquire a right to file bail application under general provisions of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38812 of 2017 relates to the incident dated 15.8.2015 regarding which F.I.R. was lodged on 10.9.2015 under sections 363, 376, 506 IPC, ¾ POCSO Act and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and bail application was rejected by Court below vide order dated 1.9.2017 feeling aggrieved with which the accused applicant filed present bail application on 4.10.2017, within the period of 180 days in view of the judgment of this Court dated 25.8.2017 passed in the case of Janardan Pandey Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No.2943 of 2017 as the offence has been committed prior to enforcement of Amending Act. (iv) Criminal Appeal Defective No.785 of 2017 relates to the incident dated 29.2.2016 regarding which F.I.R. was lodged on 14.6.2016 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act bail application was rejected by Court below on 20.9.2016 and the appeal was filed on 14.11.2017, after 330 days from the order of rejection of bail, with an application for condonation of delay.
(3.) Whenever some new enactment comes into force or some new provisions are added in existing enactments, some confusions may arise in the minds of litigants or the persons concerned. To do away alleged non-existing confusions and provide clarity with regard to implementation of procedure mentioned in newly added provisions of sections 14-A, 15-A etc. of S.C./S.T. Act, a Single Judge Bench of this Court delivered two judgments, (i) on 25.8.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.2943 of 2017 Janardan Pandey vs. State of U.P. and (ii) on 29.8.2017 in Criminal Appeal Defective No.523 of 2017 Rohit vs. State of U.P., 2017 101 AllCriC 242.;