Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1084 (PNJ)

Nirottam v. State of Haryana

2024-07-22

MANISHA BATRA

body2024
JUDGMENT Manisha Batra, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act') by the appellant challenging the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby an application filed by him under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 73 dated 19.04.2024, registered under Sections 148, 149, 285, 323, 427, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act at Police Station Hassanpur, District Palwal, had been dismissed. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on 19.04.2024 on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant Satveer alleging therein that he belonged to schedule caste community. It was alleged that there was a fight with the accused persons, about which, he had made a complaint to the police station but the matter was compromised with the intervention of the police officials. However, when he reached home, after some time, 20 people armed with weapons like Ballam, Farsa and country made pistol attacked on them and fired bullet shots. They extended beatings to the his daughter and sister. He named the appellant, Lokesh, Birendra, Lala, Sanjay, Bansi and some other persons as assailants. The accused persons had also damaged a motorcycle of the complainant. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 18.04.2024 at 09:30 PM. It was also alleged that the accused persons have used casteist remarks. The complainant, thus, prayed for taking action against the culprits. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and the same are under way. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal but the same had been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, vide impugned order dated 05.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations as levelled against him do not make out any case for commission of either of the offences. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations as levelled against him do not make out any case for commission of either of the offences. There are general and vague allegations against the appellant as well as co-accused. In fact, the complainant party had attacked and beaten the appellant and others and a video recording of the same was also available, which showed that the complainant party was aggressor one. A complaint was also moved in this regard but no action was taken against them. There is delay of 01 day in registration of the FIR. Neither of the provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act has been attracted in this case against the appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had wrongly observed that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. were not attracted in view of the allegations qua commission offence punishable under Section 3 of SC/ST Act. With these broad submissions, it is argued that the present appeal deserves to be accepted and the appellant deserves to be given benefit of pre-arrest bail. 4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious and specific allegations against the appellant. He had not only opened attack on the complainant and his daughter but has also damaged his property. The appellant and co-accused have also used derogatory words related to complainant's caste. It is further argued that thorough investigation is required to be conducted in the matter. Even otherwise, provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are fully attracted in this case, thereby creating a bar for exercising powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully. 6. As per allegations, the appellant along with co-accused had opened attack on the complainant party on 18.04.2024, whereby they extended beatings to the complainant as well as his daughter and sister. They are also alleged to have sabotaged the property of the complainant and are further alleged to have used casteist remarks against the complainant. 6. As per allegations, the appellant along with co-accused had opened attack on the complainant party on 18.04.2024, whereby they extended beatings to the complainant as well as his daughter and sister. They are also alleged to have sabotaged the property of the complainant and are further alleged to have used casteist remarks against the complainant. A perusal of the contents of the FIR shows that no specific attribution has been made and only general allegations have been levelled by the complainant. The complainant has not mentioned as to which accused extended beatings to him and his sister and daughter and who had fired bullet shots. He has not even specified his allegations about damaging his motorcycle. Further, with regard to allegations of the case falling within the ambit of Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it may be stated that though there are allegations levelled in the FIR that the accused persons used casteist remarks but again the same lacks specificity as there is no mention as to what type of casteist remarks were made and by whom. Hence, the case cannot be stated to be falling within either of the provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act. The provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act say that any 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 or abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view shall be liable to be punished under Section 3 of SC/ST Act. However, the appellant cannot be stated to have abused the complainant as the allegation is only that he used 'casteist remarks'. Therefore, no prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under either of the provision of Section 3 of SC/ST Act can be stated to have been made out, thereby attracting the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case of commission of an offence under the Act is not made out or if it can be shown that the allegations were false. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case of commission of an offence under the Act is not made out or if it can be shown that the allegations were false. Accordingly, it is held in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall also be subject to the following conditions (i) The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from today cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. 8. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.