ORDER
R.R. Yadav, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applications as well as learned Public Prosecutor at lenght.
2. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants before me is that according to the facts and circumstances alleged in the FIR the male accused No. 1 to 5 were sufficient to cause injury to the first informant and it is highly importable and unbelievable that two ladies viz. Krishna and Kanta also accompanied the accused persons. The allegations against these two ladies appear to be highly improbable and unbelievable. According to the learned counsel for the applicants the first informant unscrupulously included the name of aforesaid two ladies in order to harass the accused applicants.
3. The aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants are refuted by the learned P.P. He raised a preliminary objection that since the applicants did not press their bail application on merits before the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, the instant pre-arrest bail application cannot be disposed-off on merits. He further urged before me that under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 the accused applicants cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid rival contentions raised at the bar.
5. The preliminary objection raised by the learned P.P. is an objection of formal nature having no bearing on the merits of the case. In my considered opinion if substantial justice is pitted against mere technicalities then the Court of law will not allow the substantial justice either to escape or slide.
6. As regards the second objection raised by the learned P.P. to the effect that the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on pre-arrest bails as contemplated Under/Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is concerned, an identical question came up for consideration in the case of Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan before a learned Single Judge of this Court where it is ruled that Section 18 does not create a complete bar for anticipatory bail and the liberty of a person should not be left at the whims of an unscrupulous complainant or a police officer. The aforesaid judgment is reported in 1995 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 472.
7. I respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rakesh & Others (supra).
8. In my humble opinion it is the duty of this Court to see that the strigent provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not misused. The aforesaid object can be achieved only if judicial scrutiny is made permissible to find out whether an offence under the aforesaid Act has been committed by a person or a group of persons before refusing him or them as the case may be the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
9. In my considered opinion valid, reasonable and sufficient, grounds exist to enlarge applicants No. 6 and 7 on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it. is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants No. 6 and 7 viz. Krishna w/o Gurudutt and Kanta w/o Vishnudutt in FIR No. 550/95 of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the following conditions:-
(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; and
(iii) that they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
10. As regards pre-arrest bail application of applicants No. 1 to 5 viz. Girdharilal, Shubhas, Kakoo alias Vishwa Mitra, Inder and Gurudutt is concerned, I am of the opinion that no valid and sufficient grounds are made out to enlarge them on pre-arrest bail, therefore, their anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
After dictation of the order the learned members of the Bar present in the Court made a request to make the order reportable. The request is allowed and the order is made reportable.