Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1571 (PNJ)

Manjit Indira v. State Of U. T. , Chandigarh

2000-12-21

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in a case under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act), and under Section 506 IPC. 2. The learned counsel appearing for U.T. Chandigarh has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the bar created by Section 18 of the Act, no order for the release of the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail can be passed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR lodged by Smt. Devinderjit Kaur (complainant), there is nothing to indicate that she belonged to a scheduled caste and under these circumstances, prima facie, no offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act is made out. He has further submitted that the provisions of Section 18 of the Act would not be applicable in the present case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. ASI Hargobinder Singh Dhaliwal from Sub-Division Central, Chandigarh is present in person alongwith SI Hari Kumar from PS West Chandigarh alongwith police file. A perusal of the police file would show that neither in the FIR lodged by Smt. Devinderjit Kaur nor during investigation, anything has come on the record to show that the complainant Smt. Devinderjit Kaur belongs to scheduled caste. 5. Section 3(i)(x) of the Act relates to intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view. In the present case, as referred to above, in the police file there is nothing to indicate that the complainant belongs to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In this view of the matter, at this stage, it could not be said that the petitioner is involved in an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act. That being so, provisions of Section 18 of the Act would not create a bar to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that in case of arrest of the petitioner, in this case, petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer, on furnishing bond to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that in case of arrest of the petitioner, in this case, petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer, on furnishing bond to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. It is further directing that the petitioner shall join investigation, shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; and shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. Dasti, on payment Order accordingly.