Crl. Misc. No.M-12568 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12568 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 6, 2010 Jiwa Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Through instant petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated March 17, 2010 passed in an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a private complaint under Section 3 (x) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. The order reads as follows:- Crl. Misc. No.M-12568 of 2010 [2] “His anticipatory bail application is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has surrendered before this Court and his application may be treated as regular bail application and may be decided accordingly. Accordingly accused has been taken into custody. Arguments on bail application heard. It comes out that in the complaint filed by respondent petitioner has been summoned. He is now retired Branch Manager and at that time he was working as Branch Manager and at that time he was working as Branch Manager. Accused has filed affidavit of other official of the Bank who stated that complainant came in the Bank regarding loan application and saving bank accounts and that no incident took place. Accused even denied that he knew that complainant belong to Scheduled Caste. In view of the above facts and keeping in view the fact that disposal of compliant will take time the regular bail application is allowed and accused is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10000/- with like surety to the satisfaction of this Court subject to the conditions that he will appear before trial Court on each and every date of hearing. He will not give any inducement threat or promise to the witnesses and will not leave country without prior permission of the Court. Application is accordingly allowed. File be consigned to the record room.” Crl. Misc. No.M-12568 of 2010 [3] A perusal of the above order indicates that the grounds on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge could grant concession of pre- arrest bail have been used as grounds to grant the concession of regular bail while permitting the petitioner to surrender before the Sessions Court. The accused, no doubt could be deemed to be in the custody of the Sessions Judge but a legal controversy arises as to whether the cognizance of bail application could be taken by the said Court legally. Without entering into the dispute to determine the legal aspect, it is sufficient to observe here that respondent No.2 could have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as respondent No.2 did not seem to have any knowledge about the caste of the petitioner when the incident had taken place. The objective of grant of bail or anticipatory bail is to secure the presence of an accused so that his availability is ensured during the trial. The said objective seems to have been achieved by the impugned order though there appears to be a procedural abnormality adopted. In view of the above circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to interfere in the order. Dismissed. July 6, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE