The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the repeat appeal for bail after dismissal of the appeal under section 14A(2) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not be maintainable. However, in the event of any changed circumstances, the aggrieved party has the liberty to prefer a fresh application for bail before the Special Court.

The High Court was considering the issue referred by the Single Judge as to whether a second criminal appeal is maintainable against the same impugned order rejecting the rejection of first criminal appeal under Section 14(A) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. When the matter came before the Single Judge, he found two divergent views on the issue in question expressed by two different Single Benches.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain held, “…we are of the considered view that after dismissal of the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Special Act by the High Court on any ground, the subsequent appeal before the High Court would not be maintainable. It is needless to mention that the repeat appeal for bail after dismissal of the appeal would not be maintainable even if the accused wishes to prefer the subsequent appeal before the High Court on any changed circumstances. However, since the party cannot be left remediless in the event of any changed circumstances, the aggrieved party has liberty to prefer fresh application for bail before the Special Court. If such an application is preferred, the same may be considered by the Special Court on demonstrating any change in circumstances and needless to mention that the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court may pass an order on its own without being influenced by the order of dismissal of the appeal by the High Court or the earlier order of grant or refusal of bail by the Special Court.”

Advocate Ranjan Banerjee appeared for the Appellant while Government Advocate Anubhav Jain appeared for the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 was brought into force with effect from January 26, 2016, by which the extensive amendment was made in the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for Special Court and Exclusive Special Court with power and jurisdiction to try the offences under the Act and further, power to directly take cognizance of the offence under the Act was introduced.

Section 14A provides for appeals from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law. Sub-section (2) of Section 14A further provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

It was observed by the Bench that the word used in Section 14A of the Special Act is “appeal”. The scope of appeal is limited only to see the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court/Special Court. Once the appeal for granting or refusing bail has been considered by the High Court then again in the event of change of circumstances, the High Court cannot consider repeated appeal against the same order granting or refusing bail.

“The only remedy would be to file fresh application before the Special Court for grant of bail. In that situation, if the bail application is rejected by the Special Court then repeat appeal can be filed before the High Court against that order granting or refusing the bail. It is pertinent to mention here that mere mentioning of criminal appeal as second, third or fourth would not change the right of the applicant to challenge the fresh order”, the Bench said.

The Bench also noted that the section does not contemplate that a second criminal appeal will lie to the High Court against the same rejection order of the Special Court, if the High Court earlier dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of rejection passed by the court below because an order once affirmed or set aside in appeal by the High Court cannot be revisited by means of another Criminal Appeal subsequently filed. Therefore, every time an accused has to approach the court below for a grant of bail unsuccessfully, he may prefer a fresh criminal appeal against the order passed therein before the High Court.

The Bench concluded the matter by overruling Ramu @ Ramlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) and holding that the finding of the Single Judge that repeat appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Special Act after the rejection of appeal would be maintainable against the order of grant or refusal of bail, is not the correct enunciation of law.

Cause Title: Dharam Singh Parihar & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:7868)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Ranjan Banerjee, Abhilasha Bagri, Aryan Urmaliya, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Shailendra Dwivedi

Respondent: Government Advocate Anubhav Jain

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtChief Justice Suresh Kumar KaitJUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.