Crl.M.No.M-27052 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-27052 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 20, 2010 Satish Mahant .....Petitioner v. Umed Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.48289 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-27052 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in complaint case No.69, dated 8.11.2005, Annexure P1, under Sections 3(iv)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of attrocities) Act, 1989, (in short `SC&ST Act') in which petitioner have been summoned by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham to face trial. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which the revision filed on behalf of the present petitioner against the summoning order was dismissed and order dated 15.6.2010 vide which anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Brief allegations against the petitoner-accused are that surplus land was allotted to the complainant by allotment authority, Rohtak, and possession of the same was also delivered to him on 25.6.1979, vide rapat No.498. First instalment of Rs.6106.60 was also deposited by the Crl.M.No.M-27052 of 2010 (O&M) -2- complainant. The land was allotted to the complainant as he belongs to scheduled castes. However, petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused forcibly cultivated the said land of the complainant depriving him of the benefits of the allotted land. Hence, on these facts, prima facie, case for offences under Sections 3(iv)&(v) of the SC&ST Act is made out. Section 18 of the SC&ST Act specifically bars for grant of anticipatory bail for any offence under the Act. On the similar facts application for anticipatory bail filed by co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.9.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-25631 of 2010. Hence, in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the SC&ST Act, there is no merit in the present petition filed by petitioner- Satish Mahant for grant of anticipatory bail. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 20.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge