IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2010 Date of decision: 5.5.2010 Amritpal Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. Iqbal S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for directing the Ilaqa Magistrate/Investigating Officer to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in case FIR No.27 dated 28.3.2010 registered at Police Station Kotbhai, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149, 341 and 506 as also Section 326 Indian Penal Code which was added later and under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act” – for short). The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Labh Singh whose wife Baljit Kaur is Sarpanch of the village. It is alleged that old age pension from the Government is received in the Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2010 [2] village which is distributed by his wife who is the Sarpanch and by the Secretary Iqbal Singh. On 26.3.2010 pension was distributed in the village primary school between 2.00 to 5.00 p.m. At that time, the village Panchayat and other residents of the village as also the complainant along with his wife were present. After completing the work of distribution of pension, the Secretary had left. Sh. Sukhchain Singh who is member, Block Samiti was also involved in the distribution of pension. The time must be around 5.15 p.m. in the evening. The complainant in order to go home sat on the motorcycle of Jaspal Singh and was about to go, then Malkiat Singh (petitioner No.2), Amritpal Singh (petitioner No.1), Jawant Singh (petitioner No.4), Nachhattar Singh (petitioner No.3), Rana Singh (petitioner No.5), Bhola Singh (petitioner No.6) and Baljit Singh (petitioner No.7) who had got together come inside the school and stopped the motorcycle of Jaspal Singh. The petitioners were armed with ‘kappas’ and sticks. They closed the gate of the primary school and Malkiat Singh (petitioner No.2) and Amritpal Singh (petitioner No.1) addressed Jaspal Singh who was sitting on his motorcycle as to why he on seeing them twirled his mustaches besides, why was he sending people to them for signing on their applications and for this they would teach him a lesson. Jaspal Singh then sweared that he never twirled his mustaches and in future he would not send anyone to them for signing on their applications. On saying this, Jawant Singh (petitioner No. 4) said as to why were they taking so long and he (Jawant Singh) slapped Jaspal Singh who was sitting on his motorcycle. Baljit Kaur wife of the complainant who was standing nearby asked Jawant Singh (petitioner No.4) as to why he had slapped Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2010 [3] the complainant and on saying this only, Bhola Singh (petitioner No.6) and Nachhattar Singh (petitioner No.3) caught hold of the wife of the complainant from her neck and got into a scuffle with her. They said that they would teach her a lesson for speaking in between and they tore her clothes and also uttered offending words regarding her being a member of the Scheduled Castes. The complainant after getting down from the motorcycle ran to save his wife and then Nachhattar Singh (petitioner No.3) put his turban around the complainant’s neck and pressed his neck. Jawant Singh (petitioner No.4) attacked the complainant with a ‘kappa’ that he was holding. The complainant then raised his right hand to save himself and the said ‘kappa’ hit on his hand and he fell on the ground. While he lay on the ground, Amritpal Singh (petitioner No.1) gave a ‘soti’ blow which hit the complainant on his forehead. Malkit Singh (petitioner No.2), Rana Singh (petitioner No.5), Bhola Singh (petitioner No.6) and Baljit Singh (petitioner No.7), kicked and abused him while he lay on the ground. They abused with respect to the caste of the complainant. When the complainant raised a hue and cry then in order to save them Harbans Singh, Nek Singh and Sukhchain Singh, Block Samiti Member come there. On seeing them, all the assailants ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons after opening the gate of the school. If the complainant had not been saved then Jawant Singh (petitioner No.4) would have caused more injuries to them. After the complainant regained conscious, he came to know that he had been brought to the civil hospital by Lakhvir Singh by arranging a vehicle. The motive for the incident was that old age pension which is sent to the village Panchayat for the distribution is Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2010 [4] distributed by the wife of the complainant being Sarpanch after getting the permission from the Panchayat Officer. However, the members of the other group in the Panchayat wanted to distribute the pension themselves regarding which earlier also there had been an altercation as the other persons in the Panchayat did not tolerate this and they had connived with each other and caused injuries to the complainant and also uttered offending words regarding their caste. The complainant came to know that the accused had also caused injuries to Jaspal Singh, Lakhvir Singh and they had been admitted at Civil Hospital, Doda. He feared danger to his life and liberty from the accused and requested for legal action being taken. Amritpal Singh (petitioner No.1) and Malkit Singh (petitioner No.2) are admittedly members of the Schedule Castes. Therefore, insofar as the offences under the Act are concerned, they are not liable to be proceeded against in respect of the same. Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for offences of atrocities. It is envisaged therein that whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe does any of the acts as mentioned in Clauses (i) to (xv) is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Therefore, the use of the words “whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,” in Section 3 of the Act would apply to person who are not member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe who alone can be imposed punishment for doing an act as mentioned in Clauses (i) to (xv) in respect of persons who are members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the petitioners No.1 and 2 being Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2010 [5] members of the Schedule Castes are not liable for the offence under Section 3 of the Act. As regards the utterances of offending words against caste it may be noticed that Section 3(1)(x) of the Act envisages that whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is liable to be punished with imprisonment. The offending words in the present case are not shown to have been uttered in a public place as the incident is said to have occurred inside the school premises after the work for distribution of pension had been completed and everyone was leaving. Besides, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the incident had occurred inside the school premises which were closed. Therefore, the offending words are not uttered in public view and the offence in terms of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is therefore not made out. However, Nachhattar Singh (petitioner No.3) and Bhola Singh (petitioner No.6) are stated to have entered into a scuffle with Baljit Kaur wife of the complainant and had torn her clothes. The said act of tearing the clothes of a lady who is a member of the Scheduled Castes would attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, which provides that whoever not being member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe assaults or uses force to any women belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty shall be liable for punishment. The allegations against Nachhattar Singh (petitioner No.3) and Bhola Singh (petitioner No.6) are that they tore the clothes of Baljit Kaur, wife of the complainant who is a lady and a member of Crl. Misc. No. M-12093 of 2010 [6] the Scheduled Castes. Therefore, their role is such which would not entitle them to the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail. The offence under Section 326 IPC was added later and it is on account of the injury caused by Jawant Singh (petitioner No.4) which hit on the finger of the complainant Labh Singh. The said injury is on a non- vital part. The offences other than under the Act and Section 326 IPC are bailable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, Amritpal Singh (petitioner No.1), Malkit Singh (petitioner No.2), Jawant Singh (petitioner No.4), Rana Singh (petitioner No.5) and Baljit Singh (petitioner No.7) are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. However, Nachhattar Singh (petitioner No.3) and Bhola Singh (petitioner No.6) are not entitled for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is disposed of and the petitioners No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, in the event of their arrest, shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall join investigation as and when called. However, the petition of petitioners No.3 and 6 is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 5, 2010 amit