Dismissed

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2012CRM-M/19617/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail because Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 prohibits seeking bail after a cognizance order is passed. The Court held the petition was not maintainable and devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed being devoid of merit in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the Act.

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-19617 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-19617 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: July 25, 2012

¶5

Sukhbir Singh and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.S.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

.......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.37992 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-19617 of 2012

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in complaint case No.279, dated 2.8.2007, under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (for short the `Act'), and under Sections 354, 342, 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶19

This is second application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioners-accused. Their earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 17.9.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-27384 of 2010, by observing that in view of the bar created

¶20

Crl.M.No.M-19617 of 2012(O&M) -2-

¶21

under Section 18 of the Act, the petition is not maintainable. Petitionersaccused moved to Hon'ble Apex Court against the said order passed by this Court and, however, the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court. Now the present application for anticipatory bail has been filed on the plea that the matter has allegedly been compromised between the parties.

¶22

Be that as it may, in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the Act, the present petition for anticipatory bail is also not maintainable.

¶23

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionersSukhbir Singh, Jagir Singh, Gurmit Singh, Balkar Singh, Jatinder Pal Singh and Surinder Pal Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶24

25.7.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federation of Oil Tankers Association Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Maa Vashino Traders Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Garrison Engineer Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Others

Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Haripal @ Harpal Vs State of Haryana

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab