IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.2.2011 Zile Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …. Respondents 2. CRM No.M-37467 of 2010 Balkar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …. Respondents Present : Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. None for respondent No.2. *** S.S. SARON, J. As per office report, both the respondents have been served for today. However, no one has put in appearance for respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 [2] This order will dispose of two Crl. Misc. petitions i.e. CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 and CRM No. M-37467 of 2010 as both arise out of the same FIR. The facts are taken from CRM No. M-37468 of 2010. The petitioners in the respective petitions pray for grant of pre-arrest bail in a complaint case dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P1) titled Rajender Singh v. Sumer Singh and Others for the offences under Section 3(i) (v) read with Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act” – for short) as also Sections 323, 324 and 442 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. Zile Singh and Mahajan sons of Munshi Ram (petitioners No.1 and 2 in CRM No. M-37468 of 2010) as also Balkar son of Ram Dhari (petitioner in CRM No. M-37467 of 2010) filed a suit for permanent injunction on 16.8.2005 against the Gram Panchayat, village Chhichhrana, District Panipat for restraining the said Gram Panchayat from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in land measuring 149 kanals 10 marlas in village Chhichhrana. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) vide order dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure P2) directed the maintenance of status quo regarding possession of the suit land. The said interim order was extended vide order dated 1.3.2006 (Annexure P3) till 20.4.2006. It is alleged that the complainant- respondent No.2 Rajender Singh son of Ram Dhari filed a complaint (Annexure P1) to pressurize the petitioners in order to settle scores qua the civil suit which is pending before the learned Civil Court at Panipat. It is submitted CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 [3] that the complainant-respondent No.2 has also filed a suit (Annexure P4) for declaration with consequential relief for mesne profit for the alleged crops which had been cut during the season 2005-06. The complaint (Annexure P1) it is alleged has been filed after the complainant failed to get relief from the civil Court and the civil Court had rather granted the status quo order dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure P2) in favour of the plaintiffs Zile Singh, Mahajan and Balhar (petitioners). A perusal of the order (Annexure P2) of status quo shows that the same relates to land measuring 149 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Chhichhrana, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat. The Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 (Annexure P7) of village Chhichhrana has been placed on record and a perusal of the same shows that the land as mentioned therein and which is subject matter of the suit is owned by Shamlat Thola Kulyan Hasab Hasad Rakba Malkiati Har Ek Mandji Bandobast for the year 1880 of the village residents. In the column of possession, it is recorded as Makbooja Charand. The name of the plaintiffs or that of complainant/respondent No.2 does not figure in the said Jamabandi (Annexure P7) in respect of the suit land whereby the order (Annexure P2) of status quo has been passed. The complainant in his complaint (Annexure P1) has mentioned that land measuring 63 kanals 10 marlas which is part of the land in respect of which order (Annexure P2) of status quo had been passed was taken in an open auction on 7.7.2005 for the year 2005-06 for a sum of `4600/-. The amount was deposited with the Sarpanch of CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 [4] the village on 9.7.2005 and possession, it is alleged, was delivered to the complainant on 25.7.2005 and he sowed rice crop on the said allotted land. It is alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2 that he sensed that the respondents in the complaint i.e. Sumer Singh, Balkar Singh and Zile Singh (petitioners herein) were likely to interfere and cut the ripe crop. Therefore, he (complainant) along with other lessees filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge and a stay order dated 21.10.2005 was passed. It is alleged that the complainant along with other lease holders went at the site at 10.00 a.m. on 1.11.2005 and asked the respondents in the complaint (Annexure P1) not to cut his crop. The respondents in the complaint (Annexure P1) and others raised lalkara and used offending words against the Caste and cut the crop; besides, dispossessed the complainant and deprived him to derive the benefit of cultivating the crop during Kharif 2005 against the illegal and wrongful acts of the respondents in the complaint (Annexure P1). The complainant lodged a complaint with the police but they took no action under the Act. The complainant, it is submitted, belongs to the Scheduled Castes (chamar community) and it was prayed for taking legal action. The allegations as made in the complaint are liable to be gone into and considered by the learned trial Magistrate after evidence has been led. It may however be noticed that as per Jamabandi of village Chhichhrana for the year 2007-08, the possession of the petitioners or that of complainant-respondent No.2 is not shown. Even though CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 [5] the complainant-respondent No.2, it is alleged, had cultivated the crop for the year 2005-06. Besides, the order of status quo dated 27.9.2005 (Annexure P2) in respect of the land has been passed on a suit filed by Balkar Singh, Rishi Ram @ Mahajan and Zile Singh (petitioners). Therefore, these aspects indeed are to be gone into by the learned trial Magistrate. The case is one of a private complaint where the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. Though the petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of offences under the Act to which the provisions of Section 438 CrPC are in-applicable. However, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can grant bail so as to secure the presence of the accused during the trial of the case. To confine a person in custody on the basis of mere allegations and without his custody being required for the purposes of investigation would affect the liberty of citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The complainant/respondent No.2 despite issuance of notice has not put in appearance to oppose the application. Besides, the real intent of summoning an accused in a complaint case is to secure his presence during trial of the case for his prosecution. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petitions are allowed and the petitioners in the respective petitions are directed to put in appearance before the learned trial Magistrate within 2 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, in the event of their arrest, they shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bonds and CRM No.M-37468 of 2010 [6] surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 2, 2011 amit