IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34730 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 31, 2011 Satbeeri and another ….Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the complainant. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) CRM M-34730 of 2010 This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in an offence punishable under Sections 3/33/89 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act) in a case FIR No. 127 dated 20.03.2010 registered at Police Station Camp, Palwal. As per the prosecution story, accused father and sons entered into the house of the complainant; father i.e. Suresh started to outrage the modesty of the wife of the complainant; while sons in the presence of the father started to outrage the modesties of the daughter of the complainant and have uttered abusive language against the complainant and his family members. Petitioners were enlarged on regular bail from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 22.03.2010 for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 509, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, however, thereafter, police has added section 3 of the SC/ST Act, therefore, petitioners have moved present petition seeking anticipatory bail for the added section. This Court on 26.11.2010 has passed the following order:- “It is contended that the allegations under Sections 3/33/89 of SC/ST Act have been levelled against Suresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar was found 2 CRM M-34730 of 2010 innocent during investigation. Accordingly, the entire version proved to be false. Therefore, the offence under Sections 3/33/89 of SC/ST Act is not made out. Notice of Advocate General, Haryana, for 04.02.2011. In the meanwhile, the petitioners, if arrested, shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall comply with conditions specified in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant, has vehemently argued that in view of Section 18 of the Act, petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail as held by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Suraj Bhan vs. State of Haryana reported in 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 431. Learned Single Judge in the case of Suraj Bhan (supra) in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 has observed as under:- “6. In 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 439 (supra), it was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that Section 438 of Cr.P.C. does not apply to any case involving arrest of any person accused of 3 CRM M-34730 of 2010 having committed any of the offences detailed in Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. 7. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 439 (supra), it cannot be said that this Court still has got the power to grant anticipatory bail to an accused in a case under Section3 of the SC/ST Act. The authority 1999(3) All India Criminal Reports 817 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would have no application to the facts of the present case.” There is no dispute that earlier petitioners were enlarged on regular bail for offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 509, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act was added against the petitioners. Perusal of the record would reveal that utterance of the words to the complainant and his family members is not shown in the public place, rather shown in the house of the complainant. The story set up by the complainant that father and sons accused formed the unlawful assembly to modest the wife and daughter of the complainant seems to be highly doubtful because in the Indian Society, it is not 4 CRM M-34730 of 2010 possible that father and son will form unlawful assembly to modest the wife and daughter of the complainant. In the opinion of this Court, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would apply only when prima facie case is made out. Moreover, offence under Section 3(1)(xi) and (xii) of the SC/ST Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Since, petitioners were enlarged on regular bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of the SC/ST Act is added during the investigation, therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-5923 of 2011, Sonu @ Rinku @ Lambu vs. State of Punjab, decided on 24.02.2011, petitioners are entitled to be released on bail on furnishing fresh bail bonds for the newly added section because offence under Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of the SC/ST Act is punishable with maximum imprisonment for five years and is not punishable with death or life imprisonment. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Order dated 26.11.2010 is made absolute, subject to the limitations provided under Section 438(2) of the Code. Petitioner-accused shall participate in the investigation as and when he is required by the Investigating Officer. 5 CRM M-34730 of 2010 Observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding this anticipatory bail application and shall not be taken into account on merits of the case. March 31, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 6