CRM NO. M-10789 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. M-10789 OF 2011 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 26.04.2011 Jodha Singh @ Gurmukh Singh and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. R. K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) As per allegations of the prosecution, Bitta Singh and Manjit Kaur were going to the fields of Harbans Singh, member Panchayat for cutting Saag (mustard oil leaves) through kacha rasta of Boura well. Then in the way, Jodha Singh started humiliating and threatened them. Complainant and Manjit Kaur returned from the fields but Jodha Singh continued to misbehave with them. At about 5:30 P.M, they went near the house of Jodha Singh, who was standing in front of the door of his house. On seeing them, he angrily started abusing them. In the meantime, Jagir Singh relative of Jodha Singh also came there. Joga Singh hit a punch on his face due to which his upper tooth was broken and started bleeding from lips. Billa s/o Kartar was attracted. CRM NO. M-10789 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- Thereafter, FIR No.114 dated 06.12.2010 under Sections 325/354/34 IPC was registered. Later on, offence under Section ¾ of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also added. Learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Ashok Kumar, is fair enough to concede that the parties have arrived at a compromise on 06.01.2011 vide Annexure P-2. Previously, petitioners were granted interim bail by the Sessions Judge in compliance to which they are stated to have appeared. It is debatable whether offence under Section ¾ of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted to the facts of present case. So, in view of the compromise, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands accepted. Both the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of SHO/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions, as envisaged in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C : i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation, as and when required; ii) That the petitioners 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; and iii) That the petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court. APRIL 26, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE