Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2119 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana

2009-12-07

S.S.SARON

body2009
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron J. (Oral) - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a complaint case, lodged by respondent No. 2. 3. Dharampal (respondent No. 2) filed a complaint (Annexure P-4) against the petitioner and others alleging that he belongs to Adharmi or Chamar caste and the petitioner side were travel agents and had been sending persons abroad. It is alleged that the complainant (respondent No. 2) gave an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) on 04.10.2005 for sending Raman Kumar, the son of the complainant, abroad. On 04.10.2005 Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) took the son of the complainant to Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi for sending him to Germany. The complainant also went with them. Santosh Rani (accused No. 5) is the sister-in-law of Tirath Ram, who is the brother of complainant Dharampal. Santosh Rani (accused No. 5) had come to know from Tirath Ram that Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) is a travel agent. She had also given money to Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) for sending her son to Germany. However, he sent her son to Cambodia instead of sending him to Germany and later her son came back to India. Thereafter Santosh Rani (accused No. 5) had approached Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) to recover her money. Manjit Singh gave some money to Santosh Rani but still some amount remained to be paid by Manjit Singh. Later on, Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) fled away and refused to give the balance amount. On 05.6.2006 the accused, it is alleged, came to the house of the complainant, where the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant were present. On that day, the complainant was bed ridden due to illness as he is a diabetic patient. At the entrance of the house, Jit Singh (Ajit Singh) petitioner started abusing the complainant and uttered the offending words. Deepu Puri (accused No. 2) also shouted and uttered the offending words. Santosh Rani (accused No. 5) said that the complainant was responsible for the deception played with her by Manjit Singh (accused No. 4) and she l manded Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant, due from Manjit Singh (accused No. 4). Narender Singh, accused No. 6 also uttered offending words. The complainant bolted the room of his mother. When they were unable to fulfil their desire, they started shouting further offending words. 80,000/- from the complainant, due from Manjit Singh (accused No. 4). Narender Singh, accused No. 6 also uttered offending words. The complainant bolted the room of his mother. When they were unable to fulfil their desire, they started shouting further offending words. These words were simultaneously utterted by Jit Singh (Ajit Singh), Deepu Puri, Narender Singh (accused Nos. 1,3 and 6 respectively). Then lot of people gathered outside and saw the entire episode. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the matter, it may be noticed that the offending words, which are attributed to the petitioner, are alleged to have been uttered in the house of the complainant, where he was lying being a diabetic patient. It is, however, alleged that later on lot of people gathered outside the house and saw the entire episode. Learned counsel for the complainant has shown a site plan of the house to contend that the main gate of the house of the complainant is along the pucca street. Therefore, it is submitted that the offending words that were uttered are in a public place. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the complainant on the case titled State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna 1995(2) RCR 85(SC). 5. The offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (Act for short) are serious offences for protecting the rights of. the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Section 18 of the Act creates a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person accused of committing an offence under the Act. However is to be ascertained whether the offence as alleged are indeed prima facie made out. it is sumitted on behalf of the petitioner that the complainant is not a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Besides, it is not shown by the complainant that the alleged offending words were uttered in any public place.section 3(1)(x) of the Act provides for punishment to a person, who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Besides, it is not shown by the complainant that the alleged offending words were uttered in any public place.section 3(1)(x) of the Act provides for punishment to a person, who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. It is provided in terms of under Section 18 of the Act that Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply to any proceedings involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed on offence in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. In State of M.P. v. Ram Krishnas case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the complainant, it has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court that of course, the offences enumerated under the Act are very different from those under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention), Act, 1987. However, looking to the historical background relating to the practice of "untouchability" and the social attitudes which lead to the commission of such offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there is justification for an apprehension that if the benefit of anticipatory bail is made available to the persons who are alleged to have committed such offences, there is every likelihood of their misusing their liberty while on anticipatory bail to terrorise their victims and to prevent a proper investigation. it is in the said context that Section 18 has been incorporated in the said Act and it cannot in any manner be considered as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India . The said observations, however, relate to the conduct of proper investigation. In the present case, however, the petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case and no investigation is to be conducted. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that in case the petitioner is at large, there would be a threat to the complainant, which would continue and he is likely to be terrorized by the accused party. In my view this aspect can be ensured by asking the petitioner to submit heavy surety including surety for the maintenance of peace and being of good behaviour while on bail. The question whether the persons, who had gathered outside the house of the complainant, had heard juttering of the offending words, is to be proved during trial in the complaint (Annexure P4). The question whether the persons, who had gathered outside the house of the complainant, had heard juttering of the offending words, is to be proved during trial in the complaint (Annexure P4). It is merely alleged that a lot of people gathered outside the house of the complainant and saw the entire episode but name of any person from the public, who had gathered is not mentioned. In Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 171 (SC) in a case relating to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complaint had been filed by a number of persons of the Scheduled Castes alleging that the accused therein had abused them in the name of caste. It was, however, not stated in the complaint that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant in a place within public view. It was held by the Supreme Court that the basic ingredients of offences under the Act were missing in the complaint and the complaint was quashed. Therefore at this stage when the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigations as he has been summoned in a private complaint, it would be improper that he should be confined to custody so as to prevent him from interfering with proper investigation as has been held in the case of title State of M.P. v. Ram f- Krishna (supra). Besides, the guilt of the accused is not to be pre-judged on mere accusations as made in the private complaint. The question whether the persons had gathered outside the house of complainant and who amongst them, had heard the offending words, can only be ascertained after the evidence has been led. The site 1 to plan, as referred by learned counsel for the complainant, is also required to be considered at that stage. At this stage, it cannot be said that the offending words, on the basis of which, complaint (Annexure P-4) has been filed, were uttered in public view. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act cannot be said to be attracted at this stage, while considering the application for grant of pre-arrest bail. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act cannot be said to be attracted at this stage, while considering the application for grant of pre-arrest bail. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner has already appeared before the trial Court in terms of the interim bail, granted by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2009 and furnished his bail bonds, which have been accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya vide order dated 06.11.2009. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya was corrected vide order dated 23.11.2009 inasmuch as instead of writing the name of the accused as Ajit Singh, it was typed as Manjit Singh. The order dated 06.11.2009 and 23.11.2009 have been submitted are taken on record. 7. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner in the event of his arrest, on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court issuing the summons shall be admitted to bail. One of the sureties shall be of a responsible person of the locality of the petitioner who shall file an undertaking that while on bail, the petitioner shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. Petition allowed.