CRM-M-7569 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CRM-M-7569 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision:30.01.2018
State of Haryana
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
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.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.
3 of 3
04-02-2018 16:21:24 :::