Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by the petitioners â€" Hardev Singh aged about 53 years, Lovepreet Singh @

Golu aged about 28 years and Gurpreet Singh, aged about 26 years, all of them being accused in FIR No.165 dated 29.12.2020, under Section 3 of

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), registered with Police Station

Dorangla, District Gurdaspur.

At the very outset, it may be mentioned that Section 18 of the Act clearly bars grant of pre-arrest bail to person (s) committing offence under the Act

and for that very reason, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur before whom a petition for anticipatory bail was filed earlier had dismissed the

same vide order dated 11.1.2021.

A perusal of the FIR goes to show that there are clear allegations against Gollu and Neeta sons of Hardev Singh as well as Hardev Singh petitioner

scolding complainant Bira Singh belonging to scheduled caste with caste related words, which prima-facie come within the mischief of Section 3 of the

Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is delay in lodging of the FIR and FIR has been lodged by the complainant on account of civil

dispute between the complainant and the petitioner, with a malafide intention and he has referred to various judgments i.e. Pritpal Singh and others

Versus State of Punjab passed by this Court in CRM-M-55813 of 2018 decided on 22.1.2020, Satwinder Singh alias Sidhu Versus State of Punjab

passed by this Court in CRM-M-22548-2017 decided on 7.9.2017,J agir Chand Versus State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 445, Pala Singh

Versus State of Punjab, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal)817 and Gurdeep Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal)539.

However, I find that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and judgments cited by him do not help the petitioners in any way.

While determining the question whether the accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail or not, the merits of the case are not to be gone into deeply. The

aspects with regard to delay in lodging of the FIR and there being civil litigation pending before the parties and the FIR allegedly having been got

recorded as a counter-blast etc. shall be gone into by the trial Court and those need not be probed in depth by this Court. The judgments cited do not

find application to the present case due to different facts and circumstances and the context in which such observations have been made.

Thus in view of the bar of Section 18 of the Act, the instant petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.