Mohamad And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1833 P&H

CRM-M-42453-2021                                             -1-

                          101
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-42453-2021
                                              Date of Decision:21.03.2022

Mohamad and another

                                                                   ....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                               .....Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:    Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

                         ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.193

dated 27.05.2021, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506 IPC and later on

Section 3 of SC & ST Act was added, registered at Police Station Pataudi,

District Gurugram.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in

pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 01.11.2021 the petitioners

have joined investigation and they are fully cooperated with the

investigation process. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid

position the interim protection granted by this Court may be confirmed. He

further submitted that it is a case where earlier the petitioners were arrested

1 of 3

on 01.06.2021 and 02.06.2021 respectively and they were released on bail

and they had also joined the investigation in pursuance of the earlier FIR

which was registered under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 506 IPC and it was

after some time that the provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added. He

further submitted that thereafter since there was an enhancement of the

offence no permission was taken from the trial Court for the arrest of the

petitioners. He further submitted that even otherwise the imputations

against the petitioners pertaining to SC and ST Act were not on the record

and, therefore, the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC and

ST Act will not be applicable to both the petitioners in the present case in

view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj

Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others [2020(4) SCC 727] because on the

face of it and prima facie no offence was made out. He further submitted

that apart from the same, the petitioners cannot be arrested without the

permission of the Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pardeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand [2019(3) RCR

(Criminal) 538].

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, learned Deputy Advocate General,

Haryana has submitted that he has sought instructions from ASI Azad Singh

that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court both the petitioners have

joined investigation and they have cooperated with the investigation process

and he has specific instructions to say that the petitioners are not required

for custodial interrogation. On a query being asked to the learned State

counsel as to whether in the investigation anything has come forth with

regard to the allegations pertaining to SC & ST Act, he submitted that it is

2 of 3

only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the petitioners themselves

that the same was added and as of now there is no other sufficient material

to connect the petitioners with the offences pertaining to SC & ST Act.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court does not wish to go into the merits of the

controversy because the present petition pertains only for the grant of

anticipatory bail. As per the stand taken by the learned State counsel, the

petitioners have joined investigation and they are not required for custodial

interrogation. So far as the bar contained under Section 18 and 18-A of the

SC & ST Act is concerned, prima facie the State has not been able to make

out any ground to show as to how the petitioners were connected with the

aforesaid offence under the SC & ST Act and, therefore, prima facie at this

stage, Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC & ST Act will not become a bar for

grant of anticipatory bail. Apart from the same, in view of the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pardeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand

(Supra) earlier the petitioners were released on bail but thereafter they are

sought to be arrested without the permission of the Court and, therefore, the

same was not permissible in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is allowed.

The order dated 01.11.2021 is hereby made absolute.

21.03.2022                                   (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh                                              JUDGE

         Whether speaking                        :     Yes/No
         Whether reportable                      :     Yes/No




                                    3 of 3