Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 959 (PNJ)

Suraj Bhan v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-21

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. Accused petitioners has applied for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 73 dated 3.4.2000 under Sections 323/324/325/435/452/148/149/506 IPC and under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act). 2. The learned counsel counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the provision under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. this Court has no power to order the release of the accused on anticipatory bail. Reliance has been placed on 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 439 : 1995(2) RCR(Criminal) 85 (SC), State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and another. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners has submitted that in the present case, Section 3 of SC/ST Act was not incorporated in the FIR. He has submitted that it was only after the supplementary statement was recorded that Section 3 was added. He has submitted that in view of the facts of the present case, the petitioner should be released on anticipatory bail. He has placed reliance on 1993(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 449, Dr. Varinder Mehta v. State of Punjab and 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports 817, Pala Singh v. State of Punjab. 4. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, in my opinion, no case for ordering the release of accused-petitioners on anticipatory bail is made out, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act reads as under :- "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 committed an offence under this Act." 5 From the persual of the above, it would be clear that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. do not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the said Act. In the present case, as per the police file-produced before me, the offence under section 3 of the SC/ST Act was incorporated, on the basis of the "zimni" dated 4.6.2000, recorded by the S.P. Later on, the supplementary statements of various witnesses were recorded by the D.S.P. on 26.7.2000. 6. In the present case, as per the police file-produced before me, the offence under section 3 of the SC/ST Act was incorporated, on the basis of the "zimni" dated 4.6.2000, recorded by the S.P. Later on, the supplementary statements of various witnesses were recorded by the D.S.P. on 26.7.2000. 6. In 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 439 (supra), it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that Section 438 of Cr.P.C. does not apply to any case involving arrest of any person accused of having committed any of the offences detailed in Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. 7. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 439 (supra), it cannot be said that this Court still has got the power to grant anticipatory bail to an accused in a case under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The authority 1999(3) All India Criminal Reports 817 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would have no application to the facts of the present case. 8. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the present case, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. However, it is directed that if the petitioners surrender before the Special Judge and apply for bail, the Special Judge shall decide that bail application within two days.