Criminal Misc.-M No. 22998 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 22998 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.11.2011 Raj Kumar and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G. S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. G. R. Nagar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ... Rajesh Bindal J. While issuing notice of motion on 1.8.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time when the alleged incident took place. The complainant belongs to the opposite party. After a delay of 13 days, the complaint in question was filed in court, inter-alia, alleging preparation to commit dacoity and attempt to murder. However, on preliminary evidence, the court did not find merit to summon the petitioners for commission of alleged offence of dacoity or attempt to murder. All the offences are bailable, except under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Even for that there are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners knew Criminal Misc.-M No. 22998 of 2011 [2] that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The allegations are general in nature and further it is admitted case of the complainant that the alleged incident took place at his residence, which was not a public place.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in terms of the order passed by this court, the petitioners have put in appearance before the court below and submitted their bail bonds. He further submitted that there was delay of 13 days in filing the complaint. Prior to that, no complaint was filed to the police. The fact that the allegations are false is evident from the order summoning the petitioners to face trial, where most of the offences alleged in the complaint could not be made out on the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant. Even the mother of the complainant, who was eye-witness to the incident, did not support the case. As per the averments in the complaint itself, three of the accused named therein belong to Chamar caste. Petitioner No. 1, in fact, was the Sarpanch of the village at that time and his false implication is on account of party-faction in the village. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2- complainant submitted that on the basis of preliminary evidence led by him before the court below, the case has been committed to the Designated Court for trial for the offence committed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners having interfered in the peaceful possession of the property owned by the complainant do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody in the complaint filed by the complainant. The interim bail granted on 1.8.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.11.2011 mk Criminal Misc.-M No. 22998 of 2011 [3]