The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.18 – Exclusion of anticipatory bail, in cases of false implications – Procedural safeguards – Respondent no.2-complainant, a govt. employee belonging to Scheduled Caste, lodged FIR in 2006 against his two senior officers (non-Scheduled Caste) when they made adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report – Sanction to proceed against the said two senior officers, refused by appellant in 2011 – Present FIR lodged by respondent no.2 against the appellant in 2016 – Appellant sought quashing of proceedings, which was rejected by High Court – Held: There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide – Exclusion of anticipatory bail is justified only to protect victims of perpetrators of crime in genuine cases– It cannot be made applicable to those who are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons – To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated – Arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded – Such reasons must be scrutinized by Magistrate for permitting further detention – In the instant case, the proceedings against appellant are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 and ss.482, 41, 41A, 197 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.182, 192, 193, 203 and s.219 r/w s.34 – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 16 and 21 – The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 – r.12(4) – Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 – s.17(4), (5) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.43D(4), (5) – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – ss.21(3), (4) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.41, 41A – Power of arrest – Held: Enforcement of a legislation has to be consistent with the fundamental rights – Power of arrest is to be exercised with caution – Mere unilateral allegation by any individual belonging to any caste, when such allegation is clearly motivated and false, cannot deprive a person of his liberty without an independent scrutiny – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Interpretation of Statutes – Literal interpretation vis-à-vis purposive interpretation – Held: A statute is to be read in the context of the background and its object – Exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail cannot possibly, by any reasonable interpretation, be treated as applicable when no case is made out or allegations are patently false or motivated – Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of proportionality. Criminal Trial – Presumption of innocence – Held: Presumption of innocence is a human right – Placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty – Protection of innocent is as important as punishing the guilty – Human rights. Constitution of India – Powers/Role of Supreme Court to issue appropriate orders or directions for enforcement of fundamental rights – Held: Role of Supreme Court travels beyond merely dispute settling and directions can be issued which are not directly in conflict with a valid statute – Power to declare law carries with it, within the limits of duty, to make law when none exists. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Purpose and object of – Discussed.