NEW DELHI: Two days after recalling its order which had diluted stringent provisions of the law to punish atrocities against Dalits and tribals, the Supreme Court hinted that pre-arrest bail for alleged offences under the anti-atrocities law could be granted if there were grounds to suspect a false case had been made out.

The court on Thursday said the amendment to the

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act which kept out pre-arrest bail for an accused under the Act was superfluous, and it may strick it down.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat made it abundantly clear that it would not allow operation of Section 18A(2) — inserted in the Act along with other provisions in the aftermath of the SC order in March 2018 — as this would amount to a uniform prescription with no exceptions. It said all old provisions of the Act would hold “field” in future and added that it would pass a small order on this.

The court also said it would clarify its order on the issue of holding preliminary enquiry under the Act.

The apex court had on October 1 recalled its controversial order of March last year which had sparked protests by Dalits across the country, some of them violent, forcing the Centre to bring the amendment which shut out the possibility of pre-arrest bail for those booked under the anti-atrocities Act.

Reserving its order on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the amendment, the bench said the apex court in various orders, including a verdict passed by a constitution bench, had held that there could not be a blanket prohibition of anticipatory bail provision under the Act.

Stating that these orders had been followed over the years, the court said, “Bail is being granted in appropriate cases and we have to read the provisions in light of earlier verdicts passed by this court, including in Lalita Kumari case.”

The amendment notified in August last year was on three issues — preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of an FIR, the investigating officer shall not require approval for arrest of an accused and provisions of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (anticipatory bail) shall not apply, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any court.

As the apex court has already dealt with the first two issues in favour of the government by recalling its order, it will pass order on validity of the third issue pertaining to pre-arrest bail.

The parties supporting the amendment tried to convince the court that denial of pre-arrest bail to an accused was the need of the hour in light of incidents in different parts of the country against Dalits. But the bench rejected their plea and said it could not open a “Pandora’s box”.

“We have given you more than what you wanted. We are not on individual cases and we are not touching on any new issue. We have said enough in our order,” the bench said.

Referring to the apex court’s earlier verdict, the bench said, “The consistent view of this court is that if prima facie case has not been made out attracting the provisions of

of 1989, in that case, the bar created under Section 18 on the grant of anticipatory bail is not attracted. Thus, misuse of the provisions of the Act is intended to be taken

of by the decision above.”