The High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepted a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Sohan Lal. The court made the interim bail, previously granted in an interim order on April 24, 2014, absolute. The court relied on the fact that the petitioner had surrendered and furnished bonds.
The interim bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No.M-13764 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-13764 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 29.05.2014
Sohan Lal
.....Petitioner
Versus
Mahender Singh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ved Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2-State.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)
Petitioner-Sohan Lal son of Prem Chand, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a criminal case instituted against him on a private complaint, filed by complainant Constable Mahender Singh son of Ramdhari (respondent No.1), in which, he was summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(i) & (x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act) and 506 IPC, by way of summoning order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), by the trial Court.
Kumar Naresh 2014.05.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-13764 of 2014
-2-
entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
order was passed by this Court on April 24, 2014:-
“Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant Mahender Singh son of Ramdhari (respondent No.1) is a constable in Haryana police. He has filed a false criminal complaint, against the petitioner, on account of civil dispute of plot between the parties, in which, he (petitioner) was summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(i) & (x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act) and 506 IPC, by means of summoning order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), without any cogent reason, by the trial Court. The argument is that even no offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC&ST Act, is made out against the petitioner, in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 931.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 14.05.2014.
Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit him to interim (provisional) bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction . ”
May 29, 2014 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE
Kumar Naresh 2014.05.30 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under the SC&ST Act and IPC 506 deserves acceptance.
Whether the interim bail granted by this Court should be made absolute.
Whether a false complaint filed due to a civil dispute warrants anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and anotherRelied on¶24
Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 931
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sohan Lal
Mahender Singh
State
Mehender Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
