CRM-M-28541 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No.54461 of 2009 and CRM-M-28541 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2009 **** K.R. Kaushal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.54461 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-28541 of 2009 This is a petition under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 in case FIR No.746 dated 8.7.2009 registered under Section 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention and Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act’) and Section 186/506 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) at Police Station, City, Hisar vide order dated 22.7.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Hisar. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant has not mentioned in the FIR that respondent No.2 had the knowledge about the caste of the complainant. Learned Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his order dated 22.7.2009, while granting bail has also taken into consideration a decision of this Court in the case titled as “Pishora Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another” 2002(3) CCJ (P&H) 319, in which, it has been held that where it is not mentioned that the accused had the knowledge about the caste of the complainant then the bar of Section 18 of the Act will not be attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after the bail was granted, respondent No.2 again threatened the petitioner and uttered the castiest words. He referred to complaint (Annexure P-5), which was made to the Sr. CRM-M-28541 of 2009 - 2 - Superintendent of Police, Hisar and has also submitted that one miscellaneous application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar for cancellation of bail, which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2009 observing that “During arguments counsel for the petitioner has produced one peon who has allegedly stated there was nothing happened in their presence and he stated that although nothing has happened in his presence yet the complainant has told him that accused came in his offence in his absence and has abused him and threatened him. The police on verification has found the allegations to be false. One copy of inquiry report dated 4.3.2008 has also been filed which shows that earlier also this Khoobi Ram Kaushal has made allegations against Dalbir Singh Kirmara and even at that time the then DSP, Hisar, has found the allegations to be false. The accused has referred to Joginder Singh Vs. Hukan Chand and another 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 1007. In that aruthority it is held that allegations with regard to threat to any PW not established and there is no ground to cancel the bail.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner did not mention in his complaint, which has been converted into FIR, that respondent No.2 had the knowledge about his caste and that on Police verification, the allegations, which has been levelled in the complaint (Annexure P-5) are not found to be true, I do not find any merit in the present case and hence the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 29, 2009 JUDGE vivek