CRM-M-27179-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] :::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27179-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:09.09.2011. Jasdev Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a complaint case No.107 dated 31.07.2009 titled as `Manjit Kaur Vs. Jasdev Singh etc.' under Sections 323/506/148/149 IPC and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short “the Act”] pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib. It is submitted that petitioner No.6 had registered FIR No.73 dated 18.05.2009, under Sections 420, 120-B and 345 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib against the complainant and the members of her family for duping her of an amount of `1.5 lacs in the name of sending Balkaran Singh (petitioner No.2) to Malaysia. It is further submitted that the complainant had threatened the petitioners that she would involve them in some case under the Act. The petitioner No.1 had sent a complaint to the SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 13.07.2009 through registered post for taking action against the complainant and other members of her family in this regard and as a counter-blast, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant (respondent No.2) on 31.07.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRM-M-27179-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 801 to contend that the complaint and all proceedings arising therefrom is a counter-blast to the FIR referred to above, in which even the challan has been presented. At this stage, Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2/complainant and submits that the petitioners may not be allowed bail for the reason that not only Section 18 of the Act creates an absolute bar for allowing anticipatory bail, but the petitioners had also persuaded one of the witnesses of the complainant to file an affidavit in their favour which is contrary to the spirit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that apparently the complaint has been filed as a counter-blast to the FIR registered by petitioner No.6 and being afraid of threats given by respondent No.2/complainant, an application was sent through registered post by the petitioner No.1 to the SSP, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 13.07.2009 which came to be true when the complaint was filed on 31.07.2009. Hence, the petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed, i.e. 21.09.2011 and on their entering appearance, they shall be released on bail by the learned Trial Court on their furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction. The petition stands disposed of. September 09, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE