RAJ SINGH ALIAS RAJU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.118 dtd. 5/4/2016, registered at Police Station Madlauda District Panipat, under Ss. 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this case has a checkered history. It has come on the record that the complainant was working as labour in the field as well as in the house of the petitioner. Originally, the complainant made complaint (Annexure P-2) dtd. 8/3/2015, complaining only that the petitioner had abused her and no allegations under the Act were levelled against him. Two weeks thereafter, she gave another complaint (Annexure P-3) and levelled allegations that the petitioner was blackmailing her and threatening her and had been spreading lies about her and her character. In the said application, she went on to say that her previous complaint was not being looked into and the police had not invoked the Act. Thereafter, on 5/4/2016, she made a fresh complaint and in this complaint she made detailed allegations for the first time about the petitioner having insulted her by using her caste name. Apart from this, in this complaint, she also went on to make serious sexual allegations against the petitioner and of even assaulting her. However, those allegations have been found false by the police.

(3.) In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order dtd. 24/5/2016, granting interim bail to the petitioner, be confirmed.