IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-11702 of 2011 Date of decision : 06.05.2011 Shiv Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. K.C.Puri, J. The petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.44 dated 8.2.2011, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 323, 506 and 436 IPC and 3/33/89 SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon. As per allegation of the prosecution, on 9.2.2011, complainant- Krishan Kumar made a statement in which he stated that on 6.2.2011, he had a minor dispute with the Naveen. On 7.2.2011, father, mother of Lillu and brother of Shamsher came to the house of the complainant and abused him by saying chamar dedh and threatened to kill him. At about 11.30 pm., Naveen, Shamsher and Lillu along with 8-10 persons came to his house and gave kick blows to his door and said that they will see him by pronouncing him chamar and dhed. Naveen armed with iron rod gave blow on his head. Lillu gave iron pipe blow on his right shoulder and elbow. The complainant, his wife-Kamla and his son Neeraj sustained injuries. On hearing the cries, Crl.Misc.No.M-11702 of 2011 Chander Singh and Mahender came there and saved them. While they were going, they put his shop on fire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. The petitioner is stated to be a resident of the same village as that of the complainant but inspite of that his name is not mentioned in the FIR. He further states that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. On the other side, State counsel has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Chander, name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned. The complainant and his family members sustained injuries and the accused persons put the shop/khokha of the petitioner on fire. In view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed. ( K.C. Puri) Judge 06.05.2011 sd 2