Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1075 (PNJ)

Ran Singh v. State of Haryana

2024-07-18

ALOK JAIN

body2024
JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Jain, J. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants seeking concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 45 dated 09.04.2024 under Section 323, 34, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Behai Bhiwani, District Bhiwani. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants after taking this Court through the FIR has opened his arguments that the Court below has erred by denying the concession of anticipatory bail to the appellants as it did not properly appreciate the grounds and evidence which entitle the appellants to be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants after taking through the contents of the FIR has submitted that the registration of FIR itself was a pre-meditated and a calculated move on the part of the complaint. He submits that after lodging of the FIR, when the Investigating Officer had gone to the hospital for recording the statement of the complainant, interestingly, the complainant instead of getting his statement reduced into writing, handed over a typed copy of his statement to the Investigating Officer. He submits that a typed statement clearly demonstrates that the complainant had planned the entire exercise of initiating criminal proceedings against the appellants. He submits that the complainant has an incongruous relation with the appellants for the reason that appellant No. 2 was working as a tube well operator and the complainant in his official capacity had stopped the pay of the appellant No. 2 for which one of the appellants approached this Court by filing a civil writ petition. He contends that there was another dispute between the parties qua a parcel of land in their village and in that dispute the complainant nefariously dislodged the appellants from their land and the parties are in litigation in that matter also. He further submits that the complaint against the appellants is nothing but an act of vengeance and the FIR was lodged only to entangle the appellants under a statute where it would be practically impossible for them to obtain anticipatory bail. The complainant maliciously with an oblique motive, in order to pressurize the appellants in the civil litigation pending between them, lodged the present FIR. The complainant maliciously with an oblique motive, in order to pressurize the appellants in the civil litigation pending between them, lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the FIR makes omnibus allegations as to the utterance of certain words and does not make specific imputations against a particular appellant, hence, the version narrated in the FIR is nothing but a concocted story propounded by the complainant himself. The allegations in the FIR are ambiguous and have been levelled only to entangle all the appellants, who are family members against whom the complainant has personal animosity. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that in fact, the current dispute emanated on 07.04.2024, when it is alleged that the appellants gave beatings to the masons and laborers who were constructing the boundary wall of a Chaupal which was broken by the appellants and subsequently, a Gram Sabha was called and a resolution was passed but interestingly, in the resolution of 07.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 of the Gram Sabha, there is no mention of any castiest remarks being uttered by the appellants. If the allegations in the FIR are to taken to be true then it is very strange that the Authorities took more than 01 month 15 days to record the statements of other respectable residents of the village i.e. on 23.05.2024 which demonstrates that the case of the complainant is his own invention and has nothing to do will reality. 5. The counsel for the appellants has summarized his arguments that it was in the background of the previous hostile relations between the parties which include the allegations of demanding of unlawful gratification by the complainant from one the appellants for releasing his salary; the dispute with regard to filing of a writ petition against the complainant and also the litigation with regard to the land in the village, that the present FIR came to be lodged which itself is a hogwash and hence, the appellants deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants to substantiate his averments relied upon the following judgments, the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced as under: - I Sri. Gulam Mustafa v. The State of Karnataka and another. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants to substantiate his averments relied upon the following judgments, the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced as under: - I Sri. Gulam Mustafa v. The State of Karnataka and another. 2023 Live law (SC) 421 "What is evincible from the extant case law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. " II. Ramavva and others v. State and others decided on 03.10.2018 and B. Venkateswaran and others v. P. Bakthavatchalam, AIR 2023 SC 262 "The Apex Court held that though there is reference with regard to the language used by the accused but said language is omnibus and there was no specific allegations made against the accused person and exactly who used the said words." 7. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by the counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of any concession to the appellants. It has been submitted that the appellants had illegally occupied and encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat and when the Gram Panchayat moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Villages Common Land Act, an order came to be passed on 19.03.2024, directing the appellants to vacate the said land and also to pay a penalty for their actions. The said order has been challenged by appellant No. 1 and the matter is sub-judice. It is submitted that a wall was being constructed around the community Chaupal where the appellants came and threatened the masons and labourers on 07.04.2024 and also engaged in a quarrel. The matter was brought to the notice of the Gram Sabha and a Gram Panchayat meeting was called by the Sarpanch on 08.04.2024 for taking a decision qua the further course of action. It was in that meeting where the residents of the village were present that the appellants reached on the spot and then abused and humiliated the complainant from the stage of "Dada Bhumiya" which they claim to be a temple and has religious significance in the village. It was in that meeting where the residents of the village were present that the appellants reached on the spot and then abused and humiliated the complainant from the stage of "Dada Bhumiya" which they claim to be a temple and has religious significance in the village. He submits that the other residents of the village, who were present at the spot have also executed their affidavits with regard to the said occurrence to corroborate that the appellants using castiest remarks against the complainant, therefore, the ingredients to invoke the provisions of SC/ST Act are prima-facie made out. 8. Learned counsel for the Complainant submits that the appellants are extremely powerful people and their high-handedness is apparent from the fact that despite notice by the authorities to join the investigation, they chose not to cooperate, more so, they have encroached upon more than 600 kanals of village land which has now been ordered to be vacated. Though the said matter is sub-judice but that demonstrates the motive of the appellants to verbally and physically assault the complainant and make imputations based on his caste. The Casteist slurs uttered collectively by them in full public view, amounts to intentionally insulting and intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste, which falls within the purview of offences defined under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. It is further contended that the ground raised by the appellants that some litigation was pending between the parties and hence, the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law has been countered by the argument that the appellants being agitated due to an order of eviction from the land in dispute, insulted the complainant, being the Sarpanch, by specifically uttering derogatory words. He further submits that the offence was committed in full public view with a clear intention to insult the complainant and also relies upon the depositions submitted by the other respectable of the village (R-6 and R-7) who have substantiated the allegations levelled in the FIR. 9. Rebutting the arguments of the private respondents, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the statements of the other members of the village were recorded on 23.05.2024 i.e. much after the dismissal of the first bail application of the appellants and the veracity of their testimony is doubtful. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents submitted by them. 11. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents submitted by them. 11. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of SC/ST Act, 1989: Section 3-Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe . - intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Section 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 committed an offence under this Act. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 specifically makes the provision of pre-arrest bail i.e. Section 438 Cr.P.C inapplicable to the offences committed under the 1989 Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 SC 1498 " and Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India, 2020 SCC Online SC 159 has held that an accused under the Act can be granted anticipatory bail if the allegations levelled in the FIR do not make out a prima-facie case against the accused. Consequently, the only legal ground on which the appellants can be granted pre-arrest bail is whether there is sufficient material to proceed against the appellants-accused or simply if a Prima-facie case is made out against them or not. 12. The determining factor would be the allegations in the FIR itself and whether they are corroborated by any cogent evidence. The FIR contains specific allegations against the appellants-accused for uttering certain casteist slurs against the complainant who belonged to that community. The FIR also alleges that the appellants broke the chairs and intimidated the complainant which is corroborated by the police investigation report. This Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 had specifically asked the state as well as the respondent-complainant to bring on record any other cogent material apart from the FIR itself. The FIR also alleges that the appellants broke the chairs and intimidated the complainant which is corroborated by the police investigation report. This Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 had specifically asked the state as well as the respondent-complainant to bring on record any other cogent material apart from the FIR itself. The complainant has presented the affidavit of two witnesses who have deposed that the alleged occurrence took place in front of them and the appellants indeed insulted the complainant by uttering the casteist slurs as alleged by the complainant in the FIR in full public view during the meeting of Gram Sabha. Based on the material brought forth, it is safe to conclude that the ingredients of Section 3(1 )(x) of the SC/ST Act are fulfilled and the allegations made against the appellants falls within the ambit of an offence under the SC/ST Act. As a prima facie case is made out against the appellants-accused, hence the limitation imposed by Section 18 of the Act would come into operation. As regards the argument by the learned counsel for the appellants that previous hostile relations prevailed between the parties, to demonstrate that act of the complainant was malicious, it is pre-mature to return a finding whether that would amount to enough mens rea qua the petitioner to have committed the offence or a defence available to the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be considered at this stage of deciding a pre-arrest bail application. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 13. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case by the trial Court and the observation made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the appeal. 14. Pending miscellaneous application if any also stands disposed of.