CRM -M No. 19808 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 20.9.2011 1. CRM -M No. 19808 of 2011 (O&M) Virender Singh and others .... Petitioners vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent 2. CRM -M No. 20848 of 2011 (O&M) Hans Raj .... Petitioner vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent 3. CRM -M No. 21651 of 2011 (O&M) Jai Pal and others .... Petitioners vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid criminal misc. petitions as the same arise out of FIR No. 68 dated 21.5.2011, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 294, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Schedued Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), at Police Station Chhansa, District Faridabad, got registered by the complainant against the petitioners. While issuing notice of motion on 6.7.2011 in CRM -M No. 19808 of 2011, following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted CRM -M No. 19808 of 2011 (2) that the land for which the dispute is sought to be raised by the complainant is in fact recorded in the name of temple since 1967-68 in the column of possession. The petitioners are members of the Committee of the temple. The respondents have filed the complaint alleging uttering of some bad names of their caste, but the fact is that in the complaint neither it has been mentioned that the petitioners were in knowledge of the fact that the complainant party belongs to Scheduled Caste nor it has been mentioned that the alleged incident happened at a public place and no words have been attributed to any of the petitioners specifically. In fact, no case of violation of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. All other offences alleged in the FIR are bailable.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have joined investigation and after conclusion thereof, the challan has also been filed in the court. They have furnished their bail bonds. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the FIR. They being guilty of offence committed under the Act, do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above and also the contents of the FIR, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the order granting interim bail to the petitioners in all the petitions is made absolute. The petitions are disposed of. 20.9.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge