Criminal Misc. No. M-19570 of 2009 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-19570 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.9.2009
Rajesh and another
.. Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in a
complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under Sections 323/34
IPC and 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, `the Act’).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the
earlier order passed by this Court on 22.7.2009, the petitioners have already
appeared before the court below and have submitted their bail bonds.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contested the petition on the
plea that a clear cut case of violation of the provisions of the Act was made out
against the petitioners and in terms of the provisions of the Act, they are not
entitled to anticipatory bail as the incident happened within public view and the
petitioners were in knowledge of the fact that the complainant-respondent No. 2 is
belonging to Chamar community.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an
admitted fact on record that reason of dispute is that the complainant was working
with the petitioners in their fields and there was some dispute regarding sharing of
crop. Though as per learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant was
entitled to share in the wheat crop which was given, whereas the claim of the
complainant is that he was entitled to share even in the fruits grown in orchard. A
perusal of the contents of the complaint shows that the dispute regarding sharing of
the yield is sought to be given the colour of violation of the provisions of the Act.
Criminal Misc. No. M-19570 of 2009 [ 2]
The issue regarding extent of entitlement has not been gone into by any authority.
The statement made by the complainant in paragraph 5 to the effect that he
requested the petitioners to give his share of crop and fruits considering that he is a
poor Chamar seems to be an overt act on his part. The prayer is only for pre-arrest
bail. In my opinion, considering the totality of circumstances, case for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners is clearly made out.
Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court on 22.7.2009 is
made absolute.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
9.9.2009
mk