SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surjit Singh, the petitioners seeks pre-arrest bail in a complaint case bearing No.RBT 55 dated 05.02.2009/04.05.2010 titled as Jarnail Singh v. Surjit Singh (Annexure P-1) , in which he has been summoned vide order dated 19.01.2012 for an offence punishable under sections 3(1)(x) and 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is sarpanch of the village. According to him, he filed a civil writ petition against Pritpal Singh, who was inimically disposed towards the petitioner. According to him, the complainant Jarnail Singh is cultivating the land of said Pritpal Singh on the basis of batai. According to him, Pritpal Singh has got this complaint filed from Jarnail Singh by using his influence over him. According to him, the petitioner has already appeared before learned trial court in pursuance of the orders of this court dated 25.10.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no.2 , on the other hand has submitted that section 18 of the Act prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail to a person accused of an offence under the Act. He has placed reliance in this regard on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 761 where it is laid down that the accused of an offence under the Act is not entitled to anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the bar created by section 18 of the Act, which is a special law.