Gamdoor Singh vs State of Punjab

Mahinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners-Gamdoor Singh son of Labh Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case instituted against them on a private complaint filed by complainant Manjit Singh son of Kartar Singh (respondent No. 2), in which, they were summoned to face the trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of The Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, vide order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), by the trial Court.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on July 01, 2014:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant Manjit Singh son of Kartar Singh (respondent No. 2), has filed a false private complaint (Annexure P-1), in which, the petitioners were summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ''the SC&ST Act''), without any cogent reasons, vide impugned summoning order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-2). The argument is that even no offence punishable u/s 3 of The SC&ST Act is made out against the petitioners, in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and Another Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Another,

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 11.07.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit them to interim (provisional) bail, on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the true copy of the order dated 07.07.2014, which would reveal that the bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, in pursuance of the pointed order of this Court, were attested and accepted by the trial Court.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of indicated order is hereby made absolute.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail.