CRM No.M-29752 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29752 of 2010 Date of Decision : 31.01.2011 Jagan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in complaint case No.461 dated 28.07.2008 registered under Section 354 IPC and Sections 3, 33 and 89 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On 11.10.2010, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends CRM No.M-29752 of 2010 -2- that against the same set of allegations, earlier also, a complaint was made by respondent No.2 against the present petitioner, on which basis FIR was registered. Learned counsel further contends that in the said FIR, inquiry was conducted by DSP, Hodal and allegations were found false. Learned counsel also contends that on the basis of directions issued by the Court, again inquiry was conducted and the allegations were found to be false. Now, on the basis of same set of allegations, another complaint has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein, summoning order has been passed against the petitioner by JMIC, Palwal, whereas against these very allegations, the matter has already been investigated twice. Learned counsel submits that in the inquiry, it was found that factually it was a money dispute between both the parties and the allegations mentioned in the complaint were totally baseless. Notice of motion for 02.12.2010. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to join Court proceedings within ten days from today and in case he joins Court proceedings, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.” Consequent to that it is not disputed that the petitioner had surrendered before the learned trial Court and was released on CRM No.M-29752 of 2010 -3- bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that in view of the bar against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 an order of anticipatory bail cannot be passed. In my opinion, it is too late to raise this argument. Since the petitioner has been released on bail and his bail bonds have been accepted to decline the petition at this stage would in fact amount to cancellation of bail. The respondent No.2 had his remedies against the order dated 11.10.2010. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the order dated 11.10.2010 is made absolute. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 31, 2011 JUDGE ashish