Allowed

Prem Kumar@ Gurprem Singh and Anr. v. Nachattar Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2013CRM-M/15374/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought bail for petitioners summoned in a private complaint under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court granted interim bail pending appearance and subsequently granted absolute bail upon failure of counsel to establish the offence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Prem Kumar@ Gurprem Singh and Anr. Vs Nachattar… — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-15374 of 2013 (O&M) -: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-15374 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: May 10, 2013.

¶4

Prem Kumar alias Gurprem Singh and another

¶5

... Petitioner(s)

¶6

¶7

Nachhattar Singh and another

¶8

... Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶10

Present: Shri Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶11

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in complaint No.14 dated 29.3.2010, titled as Nachhattar Singh v. Prem Kumar @ Gurprem and another, in which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/5 of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners and the complainant were earlier partners. There is a business dispute between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/5 of the the Scheduled Castes and

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M-15374 of 2013 (O&M) -: 2 :-

¶15

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that keeping in view the averments made in the complaint, no offence under Sections 3/5 of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out since the alleged incident took place in the house of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that since the petitioners have been summoned in a private complaint, they are ready to appear before the trial court and face trial.

¶16

Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab and respondent No.1.

¶17

Since the petitioners have been summoned in a private complaint and they have undertaken to appear before the trial court and face trial, this Court is inclined to grant the concession of interim relief. Hence, it is directed that on appearance before the trial court, the petitioners will be released provisionally to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶18

At this stage, Shri Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. On the asking of the Court, Shri Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶19

In view of the peculiar facts of the case, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant has failed to satisfy the Court as to how the offence under Sections 3/5 of the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out even

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-15374 of 2013 (O&M) -: 3 :-

¶23

if for the sake of argument it is presumed that alleged derogatory words were used by the petitioners inside the house of the complainant and there was no public view. Otherwise also, since the petitioners have undertaken to appear before the trial court and face trial, the earlier part of the order directing release of the petitioners provisionally is made absolute. It is directed that the petitioners shall furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court upon which they will be admitted to bail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶24

Disposed of.

¶25

Paramjeet Singh ] Judge

¶26

May 10, 2013. kadyan

Prem Kumar@ Gurprem Singh and Anr. v. Nachattar Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar@ Gurprem Singh and Anr. v. Nachattar Singh and 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

Lakhbir Singh Vs Commissioner Employees and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Shiv Kumar & Ors.

Varun Jagga and Others Vs Joginder Singh Rohilla @ J.S. Rohilla

Jarnail Singh and Ors. Vs Amardeep Singh Bains and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh @ Neeta Vs State of Punjab

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Punjab