IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1010 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.12.2011. _______________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar Verma son of Sh. Bhagat Ram Verma, resident of village Kufri, P.O. Sandhu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.,P …..Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) The petitioner has filed application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No.245/11 dated 2.12.2011 under Section 3(1) (vi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short Act) and under Section 406 IPC . 2. It has been stated in the bail application that one Yog Raj who is neighbour of petitioner is having his house at a distance of 300 meters from the house of the petitioner. Yog Raj has filed complaint on the basis of which FIR No.245 of 2011 has been registered at Police Station, Theog under Section 3(1) (vi) of the Act and Section 406 IPC. It has been stated that complaint on the basis Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… of which FIR has been registered is totally false, baseless and far from truth. The complainant worked as mason. As and when he had worked with petitioner he was paid wages. The allegations regarding purchase of car by him are wrong. The allegations regarding making the complainant as bonded labour or causing any type of atrocity are also false and frivolous. 3. It has been stated that some dispute is going on between the complainant and his wife. It appears the complainant has wrong impression that petitioner is siding with the wife of the complainant. It has been stated that Act is not applicable in the case. The complainant is the son of Chaudhary Nahar Singh, District Bullandshehar (U.P), who was not a Scheduled Caste. The mother of the complainant namely Brami was Lohar by Caste and married to Chaudhary Nahar Singh. It has been stated that Chaudhary Nahar Singh was in Government service. After the death of Chaudhary Nahar Singh about 20 years back, Brami started living at Theog alongwith one Brahmu, Lohar by caste. The wife of Brahmu had died living behind one daughter named Kanta. The caste of a person is identified by birth and it cannot be acquired subsequently by any mode. 4. It has been submitted that petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The submission has been made for grant bail to the petitioner. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that Yog Raj made a statement before Sub Divisional Police Officer under …3… Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant has stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and worked as a mason. In the year 2008 the petitioner started construction of his new house and complainant was engaged as mason. The petitioner stated that he would pay his wages later on. The petitioner arranged the ration for the complainant on his ration card and made the payment. This process continued till August 2011. The complainant had some dispute with wife Seema who left the house of the complainant on 4.5.2009. The divorce proceedings are pending against the wife of the complainant started by the complainant. The petitioner had been having work from the complainant for the construction of the house as well as in his orchard. 6. The petitioner also has land near the land of the complainant. In the year 2008, 60 boxes of apple, in the year 2009, 83 boxes of apple and in the year 2010, 153 boxes of apple were grown in the orchard of the complainant. The petitioner took the apple crop from the complainant but did not pay any amount to the complainant. He told that apple crop of 2010 was sold for ` 1,05,000/- and in lieu thereof second hand Alto car No.HP09A-1692 was given to the complainant, but till date that car has not been transferred in the name of the complainant. The petitioner is misusing the complainant through the medium of car also and he has been using the said car of and on. 7. It has been stated that the wife of the complainant is working in the house of petitioner and she is threatening him that she would involve the complainant in some case. The petitioner is not …4… paying the due amount to the complainant and is saying that he had already been supplied the ration and given a car. The petitioner is also threatening the complainant that he would involve him in some theft case. On these allegations, the case has been registered. 8. It has been stated that the caste certificate of the complainant has been obtained. The complainant is not available after 8.12.2011. It appears he has left Theog under fear of the petitioner. It has been stated that in case the petitioner is released on bail he may terrorize the complainant and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail application. 9. I have heard Mr. Sharwan Dogra, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the police file. The case against the petitioner has been registered under Sections 3(1) (vi) of the Act and under Section 406 IPC. In so far Section 406 IPC is concerned the allegations are that the petitioner has taken away the apple crop of the complainant in the years 2008,2009 and 2010. He has not paid the price of the apple crop to the petitioner. As against the sale price of apple crop of the year 2010 amounting to ` 1,05,000/-, the petitioner has been given second hand car to the complainant. The complaint has been made by the complainant only on 2.12.2011. There is no explanation why he has not approached the lawful authority earlier, if his payments of apple crop of the years 2008,2009 and 2010 were not made. In so far offence under the Act is concerned the petitioner has raised serious issue regarding the …5… very fact whether complainant is a scheduled caste by stating that complainant is son of Chaudhry Nahar Singh who was non-scheduled caste. The investigating agency has however obtained the scheduled caste certificate of complainant. 10. The other allegations of the complainant are that petitioner has not paid the wages of the work the complainant has done as Mason in the construction of the house of the petitioner and of the work the complainant has done in orchard of the petitioner. The complainant has alleged that instead of wages the petitioner has supplied ration to the complainant. All these allegations require investigation. It appears from the allegations of the complainant that petitioner had been conducting himself in the manner alleged by the complainant for the last about three years but the investigating agency has not come out whether before the present complaint the complainant had approached the lawful authority in any manner regarding the alleged grievance of the petitioner. The complainant some how has belief that petitioner is siding with the wife of complainant with whom the complainant has not good relation. The petitioner has been granted interim bail on 7.12.2011. There is nothing in the status report that petitioner has misused the interim bail. The allegations of investigating Agency that petitioner may terrorize the prosecution witnesses have not been supported by corroborative material. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 11. In view of above, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in FIR No.245/11 dated 2.12.2011 …6… under Sections 3(1) (vi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 406 IPC on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar ( Judicial) during the course of the day with the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 12. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. December 14, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge. …7…