Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika Rani vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2022
CRM-M-42964-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42964-2021
Date of decision : 23.03.2022
Monika Rani
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sarabjit Singh Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a first petition under Section 438 read with Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR no.79
dated 25.07.2021 registered under Sections 323, 342 and 149 IPC read with
Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SCST Act").
On 12.10.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased
to pass the following order:-
"The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon pendency of
CRM-M No.40836 of 2021.
Notice of motion for 07.01.2022.
In the meanwhile, petitioner is directed to appear before
the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation on 16.10.2021
at 11:00 A.M. and in the event of her arrest, she shall be enlarged
on interim bail, subject to her furnishing requisite bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.
1 of 4
However, petitioner shall abide by the conditions as envisaged
under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall
be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. The case
shall be decided on merits on the adjourned date.
To be heard along with CRM-M No.40836 of 2021.
12.10.2021 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE"
Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ravinder
Singh, has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation on
16.10.2021 and is not required for further investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the fact that
FIR no.79 is a counter blast to FIR no.78 (Annexure P-2) registered by the
mother-in-law of the brother of the petitioner and a perusal of the FIR
no.79 dated 25.07.2021 (Annexure P-3) would show that it has not even
been stated that the petitioner or the other accused were aware that the
complainant belong to the scheduled caste community. It has been
submitted that in such circumstances, it has been repeatedly held that the
bar under Section 18 of the SCST Act would not be attracted. Reliance has
been placed upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi
Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others, reported as 2020(4) SCC
727, to contend that in such like situation, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-
A of the SC/ST Act would not apply. Further reliance has been placed upon
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Parkash and others
Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported as 2011(3) RCR (Criminal)
217, to state that in case, it is not specifically averred in the FIR that the
petitioner had knowledge that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled
Caste, then the offence would not be made out and the bar under Sections
18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act would not operate. Reliance has also been
placed upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled
2 of 4
as "Om Parkash Sharma vs. U. T. Chandigarh" reported as 2001(3) RCR
(Criminal) 840, judgment in CRM-M-3956-2020 titled as "Baljinder Kaur
vs. State of Punjab" decided on 27.02.2020 and judgment in CRM-M-
30576-M-2002 titled as "Jagir Chand vs. State of Punjab" decided on
01.08.2002 to contend that in case the FIR is a counter blast to the
complaint given by the petitioner or if the ingredients of the provisions are
not met with, then the bar under Section 18 cannot come in the way of the
petitioner being granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jagir Chand's case
(supra) had observed that if in a complaint/FIR it is not mentioned that the
accused persons were aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to a
scheduled caste, then in such a situation the bar under Section 18 would not
apply and the petitioner therein would be entitled to anticipatory bail.
Similarly, in Baljinder Kaur's case (supra) it was observed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court that where an FIR has been registered as a
counter blast to a complaint filed by the petitioner, then the bar under
Section 18 would not be an obstacle and the petitioner would be entitled to
the grant of anticipatory bail.
Further, it would also be relevant to mention that Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan's case (supra) has specifically
observed that in such a situation, bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the
SC/ST Act would not apply. Para 10 of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438
Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989.
3 of 4
However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case
for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar
created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have
clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions"
Even, the Coordinate Bench in Jai Parkash's case (supra) has
also observed that the petitioner must have knowledge that the complainant
belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the said fact should be mentioned in the
FIR.
Thus, keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances as
well as legal position, bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act, is
not attracted as, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 3(1) of the SC/ST
Act are not made out and the present petition is allowed and the interim
order dated 12.10.2021 is made absolute.
Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently
of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose
of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
March 23, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
