Gura Singh vs State Of Haryana on 30 January, 2018

CRM-M-7569 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7569 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision:30.01.2018

Gura Singh
…… Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana
…… Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate
for the complainant.

*****

LISA GILL, J(Oral).

Petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.43 dated 14.02.2017, under Sections 294, 341, 354 IPC read with

Section 3 (r) (w) (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act),

registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this case. The complainant’s husband was in-fact working as a labourer in

the fields of the petitioner and his demand for money was not acceeded to by

the petitioner due to which the present case has been registered as well as

due to party faction in the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues

that at the first instance, FIR was registered under Sections 294, 341 and

354-A IPC. Thereafter, on 15.02.2017, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act

Section 354 IPC was added without there being any occasion for the same. It

is vehemently argued that a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that the

1 of 3
04-02-2018 16:21:23 :::
CRM-M-7569 of 2017 (OM) 2

petitioner is not liable for the commission of the offences as mentioned

above. The bar for grant of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act is not

applicable as the circumstances do not reveal even a prima facie case under

the provisions of the said Act. No such allegations have been raised by the

victim in her statement on the basis of which the FIR was registered.

Moreover, the petitioner has since joined investigation, undertakes to face

proceedings and not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed.

Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have

opposed this petition. However, they are unable to deny that at the outset

FIR under Sections 294, 341 and 354-A IPC, was registered and it is

subsequently that Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, was added. It is informed by

learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is involved in two other

criminal cases i.e. FIR No. 324/16 under Sections 285, 427, 148, 149, 506

IPC and FIR No. 143/07, under Sections 323, 341, 34 IPC, though it is not

denied that the petitioner has been acquitted in the case arising out of FIR

No. 143 of 2007.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In respect to the bar to grant of anticipatory bail under the

SC/ST Act, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vilas

Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012(4)

R.C.R. (Criminal) 761 that a duty is cast on the Court to verify the

averments and find out whether an offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.

In the present case there prima facie do not appear to be any allegations

against the petitioner to invite the rigours of the provisions of the SC/ST

Act, though on considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court may

ultimately find the accused to be guilty.

On instructions from HC Munesh, learned counsel for the State

2 of 3
04-02-2018 16:21:24 :::
CRM-M-7569 of 2017 (OM) 3

informs that the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has been prepared

and is likely to be presented in the near future. It is further verified that the

petitioner has joined investigation.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioner

is likely to abscond or influence the witnesses.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, but

without commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 06.03.2017, is made

absolute.

Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the victim or any of her

family members/witnesses in any manner. Any such infraction may entail

cancellation of bail afforded to him.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove

shall be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are

solely confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.

[LISA GILL]
30.01.2018 Judge
s.khan

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.

Whether reportable : Yes/No.

3 of 3
04-02-2018 16:21:24 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *