AMARJEET @ AMAR SINGH Vs. INDERJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail, on account of having been accused in the FIR registered against him, his brother and his parents, at the instance of the respondent; the accusation being in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323,341,376,420,34/506 IPC and, other than that, for offences punishable under Section 3(iii) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the "1989 Act").

(2.) At the time when notice was issued, interim protection was granted to him, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, that no offence, either under the IPC, or even under the Act of 1989, is made out against the petitioner. On closer perusal of the entire record, it is seen that as per the allegation in the FIR, offences under Section 3(x) and 3 (xi) are, at least prima facie, made out against him. Therefore, in view of Section 18 of the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted for an offence punishable under the aforesaid Act. Grant of anticipatory bail in cases arising out of the 1989 Act, has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 8 SCC 795 and State of M.P. And another Vs. Ram Krishna Balothia and another,1993 3 SCC 221. It has been held that in view of the statutory bar, the only reason for grant of such bail, would be if, prima facie, the allegations do not reveal the offence to have been made out at all.

(3.) In the present case, the allegation was actually against the petitioners' brother Babu Ram, with regard to an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, on the ground that he had been taking advantage of the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her and, thereafter, in alleged connivance with the petitioner and his parents, had refused to marry her and therefore, the said brother was guilty of the aforesaid offence.