Crl.M.No.M-24353 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-24353 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 30, 2010 Tarsem and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ajit Attri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Sr.DAG, Haryana. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner nos.1 and 2 only in FIR No.196, dated 7.7.2010, registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 148, 323, 506, 149 IPC, at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.8.2010, passed the following order: “ The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.196, dated 7.7.2010, under Sections 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, ( hereinafter to be referred as `SC & ST Act') and under Sections 148, 323, 506, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that Crl.M.No.M-24353 of 2010 (O&M) -2- they came in white Maruti car and stopped in front of complainant accompanied by Subhash and Jagdish. They were armed with Bindas. Petitioner-accused Dimple gave a lalkara and proclaimed `They are Buggers (Bhanchods), Kute, Jalladon, Churon be taught a lesson'. On proclamation of these words, Dimple gave a binda blow on left arm of the complainant. Co-accused Bhira gave binda blow on the back and thighs of the complainant. Pannu gave a binda blow on the forehead of Subhash and Bhim also gave binda blows on the person of Subhash. Petitioners-accused Gurmukh and Rajbir caused injuries with bindas on the left elbow and right knee of Jagdish, whereas petitioner-accused Tarsem was keeping watch on passersby and Raju kept sitting in the car. It has been contended that only five injuries have been received by all the three persons and the words have not been attributed to petitioners-accused. However, a careful perusal of the FIR shows that all the accused have caused injuries in furtherance of their common intention by uttering the words in the name of caste of the complainant, though the words were actually uttered by Dimple in public view and at a public place. Hence, in so far as petitioners-accused, except petitioner nos.1 and 2, Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir, are concerned, prima facie case for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the SC & ST Act is made out. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Swarn Singh v. State through Standing counsel 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 74, that merely uttering of word `Chamar' is sufficient to attract offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the SC & ST Act, if the same are uttered in public view or at a public place. Hence, Section 18 of the SC & ST Act creates a bar for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused. So far as petitioner nos.1 and 2- Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir are concerned, they did not participate in the occurrence and the alleged words were not uttered in their presence. Hence, prima facie no case for offences under Crl.M.No.M-24353 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Sections 3 & 4 is made out against them. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner nos.3 to 8, namely, Gurmukh Singh, Jaswinder Singh @ Dimple, Rajbir, Bhimsen, Balbir Singh @ Bhira and Parveen Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Notice of motion qua Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir only for 14.9.2010. However, petitioner nos.1 and 2- Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said order, petitioner nos.1 and 2, i.e., Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir have already joined the investigation. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 23.8.2010, granting interim bail to petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Tarsem and Raju @ Jasvir, is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. 30.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-24353 of 2010 (O&M) -4-