Crl. Misc. No.M-24453 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24453 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 23, 2010 Baljit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Tarsem Heer …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Heard. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is apparent that on the complaint of respondent, petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short ‘the Act’), read with Sections 323 and 500 IPC. An application filed for pre-arrest bail in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in the absence of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, has been entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge I, Hoshiarpur, Crl. Misc. No.M-24453 of 2010 [2] after the same having been transferred on the request of Sessions Judge presuming that application for pre-arrest bail under the Act is not maintainable. The next date of hearing before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is September 3, 2010. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent- complainant has field an application annexure P-3 for withdrawal of the complaint before the summoning Court of Additional CJM, Hoshiarpur, but the same has not been decided, compelling the petitioner to file an application for quashing of private compliant on the basis of compromise before the High Court i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-24191 of 2010. Despite the abovesaid factors, petitioner apprehending arrest in the private complaint has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the fact that an application has been filed by the complainant to withdraw the complaint, a petition for quashing having been filed in the High Court; a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. pending before the Additional Sessions Judge I, Hoshiarpur; petitioner still ready to appear before the Court and furnish bail bonds/ surety bonds, an apprehension exists that in view of Section 18 of the Act, offences being non-bailable, petitioner will be sent behind bars. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above circumstances, it is a fit case where the petitioner should be permitted to appear before the Court and seek concession of regular bail. It is made clear that Section 18 of the Act does not prevent the grant of bail by summoning Crl. Misc. No.M-24453 of 2010 [3] Court pursuant to the summons issued to the accused merely because of the non-applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. as per Section 18 of the Act. Even Section 18 of the Act does not impose an absolute bar upon the Court of Sessions Judge to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail, if it is prima facie established before the said Court that an accused has been falsely implicated and the provisions of the Act being prima facie not applicable. Since the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner is pending before the Sessions Court, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground being not maintainable at this stage. In view of the above clarification it will be open to the petitioner to either appear before the summoning Court within a period of two days and seek the concession of regular bail or to file an application before the Additional Sessions Judge I, Hoshiarpur, for the grant of interim bail or to wait till September 3,2010 for the final adjudication of the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. With the above observations/ directions, this petition is dismissed being not maintainable. August 23, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE