Crl. Misc. No. M – 8095 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 8095 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- 5.4.2010 Balwan Singh ... Petitioner Versus Ram Sarup ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate,for the respondent. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Balwan Singh - petitioner/accused for the grant of bail in the event of arrest in Criminal Complaint No. 42-1 dated 9.2.2007 filed under Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, in which he was summoned to stand his trial for the aforesaid offence. According to him, he is innocent and has not committed any such offence. No such offence is made out from the contents of the complaint. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the contents of the complaint, no offence is made out under the Act. It has not been averred therein that the complainant/respondent had the knowledge regarding the caste of the petitioner. He has relied upon Chaman Lal Goyal Vs. Kaur Singh, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 377. Crl. Misc. No. M – 8095 of 2010 -2- On the other hand it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in cases having similar facts, it was held that the accused is not entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail in view of Section 18 of the Act. He has relied upon Harkesh and another Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 743, Phulla Dass Vs. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 212 and Jai Singh Vs. Union of India, 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 383. In Chaman Lal Goyal's case (Supra), there was no averment in the complaint that the accused had a knowledge that the complainant belong to Scheduled Caste. It was held that essential requirement of the offence under the Act is completely missing in the impugned complaint and accused cannot be prosecuted for that offence. In Harkesh' case (Supra), similar words were used as in the present complaint were used by the accused and it was held that he was not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, neither it was a question before the Court nor any decision was given as to what was the effact of non-pleading of the fact that the accused had the knowledge that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. In the other two judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent, it was held that the grant of anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the Act. In view of Chaman Lal Goyal's case, it cannot be said that prima facie the petitioner committed the offence under Section 3 of the Act. It these circumstances, it cannot be said that Section 18 of the Act is attracted. In case of appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, he Crl. Misc. No. M – 8095 of 2010 -3- shall be admitted to bail to its satisfaction subject to the following conditions:- (i) he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii)he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. The petition is disposed of accordingly. April 5, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge