Statutory appeal under SC/ST Act bars bail applications under Section 483 BNSS.

The applicant was arrested on 20.10.2023 following an FIR lodged by Shri Pradyut Kishore Manikya Debbarma alleging provocation through social media to promote communal enmity and humiliation of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community

Charges were framed under Sections 153A, 153B, 294, 354A(iv), 354B, 504, 505, and 509 of the IPC; Section 67 of the IT Act; and various provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

After the completion of prosecution evidence and the accused's examination under Section 313 CrPC (Section 351 BNSS), the Special Judge rejected the applicant's bail plea on 06.03.2026

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, arguing that he had completed one-third of the maximum prescribed punishment under Section 479 BNSS and that further detention was unnecessary

The State challenged the maintainability of the application, asserting that an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Atrocities Act was the only proper remedy

1. Whether a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) is maintainable before the High Court against an order of a Special Court refusing bail in a case involving the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

2. Whether the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Atrocities Act, 1989, precludes the exercise of concurrent or original bail jurisdiction by the High Court

The court primarily applied Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which mandates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against any order of a Special Court granting or refusing bail

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh (2003), which established that when a special statute provides a specific appellate remedy for bail, the accused cannot invoke the general provisions of Section 439 CrPC

This principle was further reinforced by State of AP v. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem (2014), which held that where special acts like the NIA Act (having similar provisions to the Atrocities Act) apply, the original bail application lies only before the Special Court, and the High Court’s jurisdiction is strictly appellate

The court reasoned that Section 14-A(2) of the Atrocities Act contains a non-obstante clause that explicitly makes an order granting or refusing bail an appealable order

The court observed that allowing a petition under Section 483 BNSS (or Section 439 CrPC) while a statutory appellate forum exists would create an "incongruous" situation where a single judge could exercise original jurisdiction while a separate bench might hear an appeal on the same matter

The court rejected the applicant's contention that personal liberty should override the technicality of filing an appeal, noting that the High Court cannot simultaneously exercise both appellate and original jurisdiction on the same subject matter

Following the consensus among various High Courts (Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh) and the established Supreme Court doctrine, the court determined that the special procedure prescribed in the Atrocities Act overrides the general provisions of the BNSS/CrPC regarding bail

Consequently, the court declined to examine the merits of the bail plea, such as the duration of incarceration or the applicability of Section 479 BNSS

The application was rejected as not maintainable, and the Trial Court record was ordered to be returned forthwith