IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln (C482) No. 540 of 2010 1. Jagtar Singh S/O Hari Singh R/O Bharatpur, P.S Kunda, Dist Udham Singh Nagar 2. Satnam Singh S/O Kanchan Singh Both R/O Bharatpur, P.S Kunda, Dist Udham Singh Nagar 3. Janrel Singh @ Jaila S/O Balkar Singh R/O Kesari Ganesh Pur P.S Kunda, Dist Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Amrik Singh S/O Awtar Singh R/O village- Tanda, P.S Jaspur, Dist Udham Singh Nagar. ………. …. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, Home, Secretary of Dehradun. 2. Rakesh Singh Rana S/o Mallu Singh R/O Chinti Majara, P.s.Sitarganj, Dist Udham Singh Nagar. ………………Respondents Shri D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 716 of 2 2010, State vs. Jagtar Singh and another, relating to offence punishable under section 3 (2) (V) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Sitarganj, pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. (3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties in the facts and circumstances of the case and after going though the papers on record, this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that originally F.I.R No. 197 of 2008 was registered in connection with offences punishable under section 302, 394 I.P.C. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners in connection with offences punishable under section 302, 394, 411 I.P.C. It is contended that only because the deceased was a member of Scheduled Tribe, a supplementary charge sheet has been filed relating to offence punishable under section 3 (2) (V) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 716 of 2010 was registered. It is prayed that since the petitioner have already been enlarged on bail in the major offences, they deserve to be treated to be on bail on furnishing fresh bail bonds in connection with the new section mentioned in the subsequent charge sheet No. 104A. 3 (5) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Jagtar Singh, Satnam Singh and Amrik Singh surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, keeping in mind that they have already been released on bail in connection with the offences punishable under section 302, 394, 411 I.P.C., relating to the incident. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.15.6.2010 N.P