Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhveer Singh @ Lakhbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2022
CRM-M-52049 of 2021 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205 CRM-M-52049 of 2021
Date of decision:17.03.2022
Lakhveer Singh @ Lakhbir Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C
seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.152 dated
10.09.2018 registered under Sections 417, 500, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar (Annexure
P-1) and charge has been amended on 09.11.2021, whereby, Section 307,
IPC and Section 3/4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have been added.
On 17.12.2021, this Court passed the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioner has filed his affidavit dated
17.12.2021 apologizing for the inadvertent erroneous
reproduction of the provision of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
1 of 3
CRM-M-52049 of 2021 {2}
short "the SC/ST Act"), which is taken on record.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the host of
allegations are against Jasvir Singh, son of the petitioner and
charge under Sections 120-B, 417, 500, 506 IPC was initially
framed vide order dated 29.01.2020, Annexure P-3. He submits
that as there was an error in the committal order dated
12.10.2021, Annexure P-4, and by a subsequent order passed
on 09.11.2021, Annexure P-6, the error was corrected and the
case was committed to the Sessions Court as it involved
allegations attracting offences under Section 376 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of SC/ST Act. Counsel submits that insofar as
the allegation under SC/ST Act are concerned, the petitioner is
alleged to have abused the complainant within the four walls of
the house and the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act are not attracted and there are no allegations of rape
against the petitioner, who has been appearing before the
Court. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme
Court in Hitesh Verma versus State of Uttrakhand 2020 SCC
Online SC 907. He submits that the petitioner is ready to join
proceedings before the trial Court on the next date, that is,
20.12.2021.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
2 of 3
CRM-M-52049 of 2021 {3}
List on 17.03.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will appear
before the trial court on the next date i.e. 20.12.2021 and co-
operate with the investigation, if required.
Let the petitioner put in appearance before the trial
court on the date fixed. In case he does so, he shall be ordered
to be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on usual terms
and conditions."
Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the
order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalandhar to submit that the petitioner has appeared before the Trial Court
and has been released on bail.
This fact has been verified by the State counsel upon
instructions from ASI Sanjeev Kumar.
In view of the above facts, but without commenting on the
merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated
17.12.2021 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
March 17, 2022 JUDGE
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
