Allowed

Jaspal Singh Gill v. Sikander

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2013CRM-M/11134/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner summoned in a caste atrocity case. The court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent, noting this petition invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. alongside Section 438 Cr.P.C. It directed the petitioner to appear at the trial court and submit fresh bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court and submit new bail bonds to its satisfaction for release on bail.

Jaspal Singh Gill Vs Sikander — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-11134 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-11134 of 2013 Date of decision: 21 May, 2013.

Jaspal Singh Gill

....Petitioner

Versus

Sikandar

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in complaint case No.291 dated 24.12.2011 under Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Sections 323/506/34 IPC, titled 'Sikandar vs. Jaspal Singh and others' , pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, in which petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 3.12.2012.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the story

¶17

-2-

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-11134 of 2013

¶19

as put in the complaint is to the effect that the services of the complainant were hired by the petitioner for doing whitewash at his place. Then dispute arose with regard to payment of certain amount. Thereafter, allegations have been levelled that the petitioner used derogatory remarks in the name of the caste of the complainant. Learned counsel further contends that entire family has been roped in including a student of BDS and there is nothing in the complaint that the petitioner was owner of the house where complainant was hired to whitewash. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact petitioner has been implicated in this criminal case at the instance of another person with whom the family of the petitioner is involved in a civil litigation with regard to a land dispute. For that reason, this complaint has been got filed. In fact, this is a proxy litigation initiated by the complainant at the instance of a covillager. Prima facie perusal of the complaint shows that story at the face of it cannot be taken as such. Learned counsel further contends that the alleged chance witnesses have been created. This whole story is false and fabricated.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 761 to contend that bail cannot be granted to the accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

-3-

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-11134 of 2013

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

In Vilas Pandurang (supra) petition was not under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. rather under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has only been summoned and prima facie contents can be taken into consideration at this stage.

¶25

This Court is not going into the merits of the summoning order. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has only been summoned, he is required to be present at the time of trial for appearance. No useful purpose will be served by sending him behind bars.

¶26

Moreover, in such cases investigation is required to be carried out by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 provides that Home Secretary, Secretary, Social Welfare, and Director Prosecution, shall review the investigations under the Act from time to time. Even the Magistrate taking cognizance of such complaints can proceed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. because there are stringent provisions in the Act.

¶27

Keeping in view these facts, this Court prima facie is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.

¶28

Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court and submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. If he submits fresh

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-11134 of 2013 -4-

¶30

bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court, he shall be released on bail.

¶31

Disposed of.

¶32

(PARAMJEET SINGH) May 21, 2013 JUDGE parveen kumar

Jaspal Singh Gill v. Sikander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Singh Gill v. Sikander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sukhbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Satbir Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh and Ors.

Narender Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Chugh Vs State of Haryana

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Haryana