Judgment:
CRM-M No.24287 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.24287 of 2014 Date of decision : 01.08.2014 Mangal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Rajpreet Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab for the State.
**** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioners have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.34 dated 14.04.2006, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (vi) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 365 IPC and Section 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, by the police of Police Station Ghuman, District Gurdaspur.
2.
Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
Sumit Kumar 2014.08.01 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.24287 of 2014 -2- 3.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4.
During the couRs.of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on July 22, 2014:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the present case was initially registered against the petitioneRs.vide FIR No.34 dated 14.04.2006 (more than 8 years ago) for commission of an offence punishable under Section 365 IPC and Section 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976.
They were released on bail, accordingly charge-sheeted and are facing the trial.
Now the complainant has moved an application (after more than 7 ½ yeaRs.to commit the case for trial to the Special Judge for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (vi) of The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') and police again intend to arrest them.
The argument is that even no offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act against the petitioners are made out, in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case of Dr.Onkar Chander Jagpal and another versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2012(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 931.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 01.08.20114.
Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear/surrender and the concerned Court where the case is now pending would admit them on interim (provisional) bail on their furnishing fresh adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.”
.
Sumit Kumar 2014.08.01 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.24287 of 2014 -3- 5.
At the very outset, learned counsel has placed on record the true copy of the order dated 30.07.2014, which would reveal that petitioners have already appeared/surrendered and the bail & surety bonds furnished by them, in pursuance of the pointed order of this Court, were attested and accepted by the Magistrate.
6.
In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the couRs.of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioneRs.by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute.
7.
Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail.
01.08.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge Sumit Kumar 2014.08.01 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document