Manohar Singh and others vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

Crl. M. No. 9555 of 2012

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners requests for withdrawal of this application as the same has become infructuous.

Dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

Crl. M. No. 7431 of 2012

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl. M. No. M-3491 of 2012

The present petition filed u/s 438 Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in complaint case No. 25, dated 17.7.2006, under Sections 332, 504, 506 IPC, and u/s 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ''the Act''), pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Briefly stated, petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 332, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act vide order dated 28.9.2011. The said order has become final as there is nothing on the record as to whether the same was challenged by the present petitioner by filing a revision petition etc.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present complaint is a counter blast and a suit for recovery was filed by one of the petitioners, namely, Gurbax Singh, against complainant of this case, since deceased and now represented by his son. However, the plea cannot be accepted as perusal of Annexure P2 shows that suit was filed on 21.4.2007, whereas the present complaint was filed on 17.7.2006, in which summoning order was passed. Specific words in the name of caste have been attributed to present petitioners and after uttering the said words, slaps were also given to the complainant in a public view by the petitioners. There is specific bar for granting anticipatory bail u/s 18 of the Act, which reads as under:-

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.

Nothing has come on the record that the present complaint is a result of any mala fide on the part of respondent No. 2-complainant against the present petitioners. Hence, in view of these facts, and in view of the bar created u/s 18 of the Act, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Manohar Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Prem Singh and Bhajan Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.