Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1357 (PNJ)

Mohan Singh v. Satpal

2014-09-29

AJAY TEWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):- This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Complaint Case No.53 dated 13.06.2009 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 500, 506 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the complaint allegations were levelled against four persons and that as against the other accused persons there were specific allegations of humilating and insulting by taking caste name in public but as against the present petitioner the only allegation was that he held the complainant-respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bachu Das v. State of Bihar and others, reported as 2014(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 975 to argue that in this latest judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has severely curtailed the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to persons who are accused of offences under the said Act. In this case, their Lordship have relied upon the earlier judgment passed in the matter of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and others, [2012(5) Law Herald (SC) 4098] : reported as 2012(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 761 and quoted the following portion:- “Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon second sub-para while learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the second sub-para would come into operation only if the conditions of first sub-para have been met. 5. I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, there are no allegations that the present petitioner used the caste name of the complainant and humiliated and insulted him in the public. Of course, on a conspectus of the entire evidence the trial Court may still find them guilty. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, however, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Let the petitioner appear before the trial Court who shall release on bail to its satisfaction. 7. Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Bench Secretary. ---------0.B.S.0------------ --------------------