CRM No. M-11083 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-11083 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.04.2009 Mange Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present FIR due to a complaint made by him against the Sarpanch of the village regarding illegal mining of sand and syphoning of public funds. According to the counsel, the application/complaint against the Sarpanch was filed on 16th March, 2009 while the present FIR has been lodged as a counter blast on 31st March, 2009. He also submits that the complainant in the FIR is in fact working as a labourer with the said Sarpanch. The counsel, therefore, prays for anticipatory bail as he has apprehension of imminent arrest pursuant to the FIR. Notice of motion. On asking of the court, Ms. Neena Madan, Additional Advocate General Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed on the CRM No. M-11083 of 2009 2 ground that there is a bar contained in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Under the circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be accepted. However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a week of receipt of certified copy of this order, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on the same day. Arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the decision of the bail application. Disposed of. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 24, 2009 'rajpal'