IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.12682-M of 2010 Date of Decision:9.12.2010 Kamlesh Rani and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Munish Kumar, A.A.G. Punjab. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Joshi, Advocate for the complainant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.51 dated 5.4.2010 registered under Sections 186/353 IPC and under Section 3(1) (X)/3(1)(II) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 at Police Station Qadian District Gurdaspur. It is contended that the present FIR is a gross abuse and misuse of process of law with a sole aim to somehow scuttle and obviate the “No Confidence Motion” to succeed, the complainant imediately left the office and got the present false case registered. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. While submitting that the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC /ST Act, 1989, placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna 1995(2) RCR, 85 (SC) wherein it is held that right of anticipatory bail not available to offenders who committed offence under Scheduled Castes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Jai Singh and another v. Union of India and others AIR 1993 Rajasthan 177 Crl. M. No.12682-M of 2010 -2- wherein the bail was held to be not maintainable when prima facie case is made out under Section 3(1)(X)/3(1)(II) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that Section 18 of SC/ST Act specifically bars application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court rendered in the case of Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh 2004 Crl. L. J. 680 as well as number of other judgments rendered by this Court to argue that accused will be entitled to anticipatory bail if accusations made in the FIR do not constitute any offence under the Act or if the complaint is false or stems out of mala fide to blackmail or to wreck some personal vengenance for settling and scoring personal vendetta. However, the above said judgment will not apply in the facts of the case as this Court has already by an order of even date passed in Crl. M. No.11401-M of 2010 dismissed the quashing petition by holding therein that it cannot be said at this stage that no offence was made out. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioners surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction. 9.12.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE