RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition for anticipatory bail has been filed by Ranjit Singh and one other in a complaint filed by Parkash Singh against them under Section 3 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1989 Act'). Bail was being sought primarily on two grounds, (1) that such a complaint was not maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate and could only be filed before the Special Court; and (ii) that the bar under Section 18 of the 1989 Act regarding the maintainability of an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. did not apply to cases where the offence was not made out.

(2.) FOR the first proposition, reliance was sought to be placed on the view expressed in Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka, 1998(3) RCR(Criminal) 373, which in view of the observations contained in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 797 is not of any help to the case of the petitioners. The Apex Court has in the letter authority clearly observed as under :

(3.) SEEN in the light of these observations, it would not be permissible for this Court to embark into an enquiry into the probabilities of the petitioners having used the language that they are alleged to have employed against Parkash Singh, while deciding the question of maintainability of the application filed by them under Section 438 Cr.P.C. From a perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the petitioners are stated to have said that "Inna chamaran, churian nun sewa sambhali hoi hai jis they eah kabal nahin han ate inna nun chhittar mar mar ke kadna pauga" and "asin inna chamaran nun Gurudawara nahi rahin dena te bahar kadna hai", which seen in the light of other assertions made in the complaint, if true, may constitute an offence under Section 3 of the 1989 Act. In view of this, the bar contained under Section 18 of the 1989 Act would clearly be attracted and dis-entitle; the petitioners to the concession of anticipatory bail sought for by them.