RAM DHARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the complaint filed against them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") is not competent because of :- (a) the failure of the complainants to specify the caste to which they belong and (b) the fact that the petitioners themselves are members of the Scheduled caste and, therefore, no complaint under the Act would be competent. The case was heard by me on the earlier date and the judgment reserved. Since on going through the record, I was not able to find any document in support of the petitioners submission that some of them are members of the Scheduled Caste, it was re-listed for hearing.

(2.) TODAY , it has been pointed out that Criminal Misc. No. 43798 of 2002, by which the petitioners had placed on record the Scheduled Caste certificates of Ram Dhari and Moola Ram, had been misplaced at the time when this petition came up for hearing. Mr. Sushil Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the validity of the certificates and, therefore, Ram Dhari and Moola Ram would, prima facie, be entitled to anticipatory bail. Even with regard to the remaining accused, the first ground on which the anticipatory bail is sought would be available as there is no averment in the complaint specifying the community to which the petitioners belong. In this view of the matter, the fact that during the pendency of this petition proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against the petitioners would in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, alone be of no avail as it would not be possible for this court to overlook the inherent defect which has been pointed out.