Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rampal vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083298
CRA-S-2609- 2022 (O&M) -1
269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2609- 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.07.2024
RAMPAL ... Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.
Present:- Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ritesh Tomar, for the complainant.
******
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the
impugned order dated 02.12.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jind, in case FIR No.272 dated 12.11.2022 under Section 323, 341,
506, IPC & Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 registered at Police Station Pillukhera,
District Jind, vide which the anticipatory bail of the appellant filed under
Section 438 Cr.PC had been dismissed.
2. Heard.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that vide
order dated 09.12.2022, the appellant had been directed to join investigation
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083298
CRA-S-2609- 2022 (O&M) -2
and granted interim bail. He submits that in pursuance to the aforesaid order,
the appellant has joined the investigation.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vinod
submits that the appellant has joined the investigation and is neither required
for further investigation nor for any custodial interrogation.
5. Appeal was listed on 09.12.2022 before Coordinate Bench of
this Court and following order was passed:-
" Inter alia, contends that in the FIR it has not been
mentioned that the present appellant had the knowledge
that the complainant belongs to a scheduled caste but it
is further contended that even as per the FIR, the alleged
occurrence did not take place in the presence of any
witness and thus, it cannot said to be in public view. It is
also contended that there is a delay of two days in the
registration of the FIR. Reliance has been placed upon
the 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.
Notice of motion for 12.01.2023.
In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the
appellant shall be released on interim bail subject to his
furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction
of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the
appellant shall join the investigation as and when called
upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as
provided under Section 438(2)Cr.P.C.."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083298
CRA-S-2609- 2022 (O&M) -3
6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record,
it transpires that the appellant has been implicated in the instant FIR for
having committed offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 506, IPC &
Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act 1989. At the same time, it is not disputed that the
appellant, after having been directed vide order dated 09.12.2022, has joined
the investigation. As per learned State counsel, he is not required for further
investigation nor he is required for custodial interrogation. This be the case,
the interim bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 09.12.2022 is
hereby confirmed subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section
438(2) Cr.PC. The appellant is directed to join investigation as and when
required in future also by way of a written notice for such purpose to be
served by Investigating Officer of this case; he will not tamper with the
evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country
without prior permission of the Court.
7. With these observations, the impugned order dated 02.12.2022,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, is hereby set aside and
the instant appeal stands allowed.
8. However, any observation made above shall not be construed as
opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and is only meant for the
purpose of decision of present appeal. However, anything obse
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
04.07.2024
Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
