Sanjay vs State Of Haryana

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') for grant of bail to the petitioner, in

FIR No.172 dated 06.08.2018, under Sections 323, 34, 341, 452, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3, 3(1)(Gha) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevension of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) (for short 'SC/ST Act'), registered at Police Station

Uklana, District Hisar.

As per prosecution case, petitioner along with co-accused, namely Aman Kinala abused the complainant with caste words and also caused injuries to

him.

Contends that petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2018 and complainant as well as his son are not only habitual in making false complaints while

misusing the provisions of SC/ST Act rather complainant is a previous convict and also facing another criminal case in FIR No.251 dated 26.07.2014,

under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Agroha. Also contends that out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been

examined and there is no other criminal case against the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition and submitted that there is sufficient material to prove the charges against the

petitioner and thus, prayed for dismissal of the same.

Heard both sides and perused the paper-book.

As per the allegation in the FIR, the occurrence had taken place inside a shop, where no other person except the complainant and accused was

present, thus, it would be debatable whether provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are attracted in this case or not?

Concededly, petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2018 and out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, only one has been examined, thus, trial will take long

time. It is duly established on record that petitioner as well as his son made similar complaints against other persons also and complainant is not only a

previous convict, but facing other criminal case as well.

Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody

anymore; as such, this Court deems it appropriate to release him on bail pending trial.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in this case, on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety

bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

The petitioner shall fully co-operate with learned trial Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.