1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/38/2026 The State Vs. Aziz- UR - Rehman Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the petitioner Mr. Mohd. Tabraiz … for the respondent July 28, 2026 [AKB] Item No.1 1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 09th July, 2026 as passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 41 of 2026 by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair is the subject matter of the instant revisional application. 2. At the time of hearing Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist being the Public Prosecutor for the State at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the written complaint as lodged in connection with the relevant PS case on 02nd July, 2026, a copy of which has been annexed at page No. 14 and 15 of the instant revisional application. 3. It is submitted that on the basis of such written complaint Aberdeen PS Case No. 121 of 2026 dated 05.07.2026 was started against the Opposite Party herein under Section 3 (r) & (u) and under Section 3 (2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes 2 and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (the ‘said Act’ in short) was initiated. 4. At this stage learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist state took me to the certified copy of the order impugned dated 09.07.2026. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist/State that the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the opposite parties application for anticipatory bail has straightway come to a finding that no prima facie case has been made out under the said Act as against the accused and thus came to a finding that the embargo under Section 18 of the Said Act has got no manner of application while entertaining the application for anticipatory bail as filed by the accused. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the finding of the learned Trial Court is faulty inasmuch as the learned Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail to the accused has misconstrued the true purport and meaning of the Section 18 of the said Act inasmuch as the learned Trial Court prior to passing of the impugned order though had perused the video clipping as uploaded but has miserably failed to consider the relevant materials as available in the written complaint as well as in the Case Diary. 7. It is further submitted that while passing impugned order learned Trial Court thus misdirected himself in opining that the rigor of the Section 18 of the said Act has no manner of application in the case in hand before him as much as no prima 3 facie case under the said Act more specifically under the aforementioned three Sections have been made out. 8. It is thus submitted on behalf of the revisionist State that it is a fit case for allowing the instant revisional application. To substantiate his contention Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist/State places his reliance upon the judgement dated 10.09.2012 as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (reported in MANU/SC/0732/2012). 9. Per contra, Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused – opposite party contend that there is hardly any scope to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as learned Trial Court on careful perusal of the written complaint vis-à-vis the video as has been allegedly uploaded in the YouTube has rightly come to a prima facie finding that the content of such video does not contain any resist comment or insult in the name of the cast of the miscreants who are informants of the said PS Case. It is further submitted by Mr. Tabraiz that in the present revisional application the affidavit has been affirmed by the concerned Station House Officer who ought not to have affirmed such affidavit in view of the fact that under the said Act a Police Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is entitled to investigate the said case. 10. In course of his reply Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State / 4 revisionist submits before this Court that on perusal of the instant revisional application it would reveal that the Public Prosecutor for the State is the revisionist before this Court. 11. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court including the Case Diary as produced in course of hearing. This Court has heard learned advocates for the revisionist and the accused/opposite party at length. 12. For effective adjudication of the instant revisional application this Court at the very outset proposes to look to some relevant provisions of the said Act which are quoted herein below in verbatim: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. – (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, - (a) …………………………………………. (b)………………………………………….. (c) …………………………………………. (d)………………………………………….. (e) …………………………………………. (f)………………………………………….. (g) …………………………………………. (h)………………………………………….. (i) …………………………………………. (j)………………………………………….. (k) …………………………………………. (l)………………………………………….. (m) …………………………………………. (n)………………………………………….. (o) …………………………………………. (p)………………………………………….. (q) …………………………………………. (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s)………………………………………….. (t) …………………………………………. (u) by words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Casts or the Scheduled Tribes; (v) …………………………………………. (w)(i) ………………………………………. (ii) ……………………………………… (x)………………………………………….. (y) …………………………………………. (z)………………………………………….. (za) ………………………………………... (zb)…………………………………………. 5 (zc) …………………………………………. (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, - (i) ………………………………………….. (ii)………………………………………….. (iii) …………………………………………. (iv)………………………………………….. (v) ………………………………………….. (v-a)………………………………………… (vi) …………………………………………. (vii) being a public servant, commits any offence under this section, shall be publishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence.” 13. This Court further considers that for effective adjudication of the instant lis, Section 18 of the said Act is also required to be looked into and the same is reproduced herein under in verbatim: “18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act. – Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committing an offence under this Act.” 14. On careful perusal of the aforementioned legislative provisions it appears that it is the intention of the legislature that the provision of anticipatory bail as enshrined under Section 438 of Cr.P.C which is equivalent to 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has got no manner of application in the event a person is accused of an offence having committed under the said Act. 15. On careful perusal of the written complaint it appears to this Court that on the basis of the aforementioned written complaint dated 02.07.2026 the aforementioned PS Case has been started under the aforementioned Sections. 16. At this juncture if I look to the impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court, it appears to this Court that the learned Trial Court based on some reported decisions of the 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court vis-à-vis the factual aspects as involved in the said PS case come to a finding that no prima case has been made out under the said Act therefore the embargo under Section 18 of the said Act has no manner of application and thus granted prayer for anticipatory bail to the accused who is opposite party herein. 17. 17. It further appears to this Court that the learned Trial Court in its impugned order has specifically stated that he had personally gone through the contents of the video which has been uploaded in the Youtube wherefrom the said Court found no resist comment or insult as against the informants of the said PS Case. 18. From the impugned order it is further reveals to this Court that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 on behalf of the prosecution the Case Diary was produced and the same has been recorded in the impugned order. 19. This Court finds no whisper in the impugned order regarding the statements of the witnesses as recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS on 06.07.2026 and the findings of the learned Trial Court as to whether any prima facie materials are there in the said statements as recorded on 06.07.2026. 20. This Court has occasioned to gone through the statements of the three witnesses as recorded by the IO on 06.07.2026 i.e. prior to passing of the impugned order from which this Court finds at least some prima facie incriminating materials to attract the provisions of the said Act. 7 21. This Court considers that the learned Trial Court while dealing with the contents of the video as has been uploaded in the YouTube ought to have considered the statements of the witnesses as recorded under Section 180 of BNSS on 06.07.2026 as well as prior to said date. 22. It thus appears to this Court that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order and thereby granting anticipatory bail has miserably failed to consider the entire materials as placed before him by the IO in its proper perspective and thus the learned Trial Court completely misguided himself in interpreting the provision of Section 18 of the said Act in its true perspective. 23. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds sufficient merit in the instant revisional application. 24. Consequently the instant revisional application being CRR/38/2026 is hereby allowed and disposed of. 25. Consequently the order dated 09.07.2026 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Criminal Misc. Case No. 41 of 2026 stands hereby set aside. 26. Consequently the anticipatory bail as passed in favour of the present accused/opposite party stands hereby set aside. 27. Consequently the regular bail granted to the present accused/opposite party by the Jurisdictional Judge stands hereby set aside. 28. Consequently the opposite party/ accused herein namely Aziz-Ur-Rehman is hereby directed to surrender before the 8 learned Trial Court positively within 07 (seven) working days from today failing which the learned Trial Court is hereby directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the present accused namely the Aziz-Ur-Rehman. 29. Before parting with it is, however, made clear that the observation made hereinabove is purely limited for the disposal of the instant revisional application and the learned Trial Court is hereby directed not to persuade himself with any of the aforementioned observation while disposing an application for regular bail in the event such an application is preferred by the present accused/opposite party in future in connection with the aforementioned PS case. 30. The Case Diary be returned. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)