CRM-M 33152 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 33152 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.01.2011 Jaikum and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.370 dated 4.11.2010 under Sections 436, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Tauru, District Mewat. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that to constitute an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, any action or omission should have been in the public place or public view. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Jagir Chand Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 445, judgment of Karnataka High Court in the matter of N.B. Gungarakoppa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 77 and Full Bench CRM-M 33152 of 2010 -2- judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the mater of Virendra Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 53 and has argued that anticipatory bail in the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is not totally barred if prima facie Court finds that offence was not committed in public view, then the Court is empowered to enlarge the accused on anticipatory bail. There is no dispute about the proposition of law as held by the different High Courts as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused. However, in the present case, it has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that when he was in the kasba (town) he was not only beaten up but accused persons have humiliated him by calling his caste. In the opinion of this Court, prima facie case is made out, hence in view of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, no anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Interim order dated 15. 11.2010 is recalled. Dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused states that petitioners would like to surrender before the Court and they should be granted some time to surrender before the Court. Let accused/petitioners surrender before the Court on 27.1.2011. (Alok Singh) Judge January 17, 2011 R.S.