(August 6, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125252

2001-DLT-94-241 :: 2001-AD (Del)-6-12

MUKESH KUMAR SAINI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

S. K. Agarwal

( 1 ) BY this petition u/s. 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) the petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 199/2000 under sections 324/342/34 indian PENAL CODE read with Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 198. 9 (here-in-after SC/st Act ).

( 2 ) ABOVE noted case was registered on 26/4/2000 on the basis of the report lodged by Raj Kumar @# Gattu alleging that he along with his brother Hanuman are running a Mithai shop which is in front of the house of petitioners. At about 8. 30 p. m. electrician came and repaired the electric connection at the DESU Pole-at" Prem Gali electricity to the house of petitioners was restored but the electricity in the rest of the area was not restored. He was asking the electrician as to why he had not restored their electricity, in the meantime, his brother Hanuman also came there from his shop. Petitioners forcibly took him inside their shop saying

"aaj JULAHEY KO DEKH LO YEH SAAlley BAHUT BOLTEY HATN YEH saala HAMAREY MAKAN KI BINA WAJAH SHIKAYAT KARTA HAI AAJ saaley KO ZINDDA JALADO" (hereinafter referred to as the humiliating words ). It is alleged that Suresh Saini (petitioner No. 2) and Naresh Saini (petitioner No ,. 3) held hanuman and at the exhortation of Mukesh (petitioner No. 1 ), his father Madan Lal Saini (petitioner No. 4), poured kerosene oil on his body; when he moved forward to save his brother; petitioner mukesh Saini picked up a piece of glass and attacked him as a result of which his right hand got injured and blood started oozing. He raised alarm. On hearing his decries his neighbour Rajender Kumar and others also reached there. They took his brother out of the shop. Inhabitants of the locality angrily broke the glasses of the shop of Mukesh saini. On the basis of the above information, initially a case under section was registered u/ss. 324/342/34 INDIAN PENAL CODE. Section 3 of the SC/st Act was added subsequently.

( 3 ) ON the same incident, another case was registered on the report lodged by Madan Lal Saini (petitioner no. 4) alleging: that on 26/4/2000 ,at about 8. 30 P. M. in the evening there was break down of power supply, on their complaint some electrician from DESU came and their electricity was restored;, At that time power supply of the whole locality was somehow cut-off. At this, Puran, Hanuman, raj Kumar , Rajender Shalu Sohan lal and Raju came there. Raj Kumar @ Gattoo was armed with knife, Hanuman and Rejender were holding iron rods and others were carrying Lathi and danda. These persons trespassed into their house and attacked him and his family members,. Mukesh""" (petitioner no. 1 ), received knife injuries on his left arm and on the abdomen; Rs. 25000. 00 which was given to them by one Praveen for installation of a new computer was stolen. Petitioner no. 4 (Madan Lal) was hit with a lathi on the head and started bleeding profusely. Ram Lal (petitioner No. 5), received danda injuries on his head. Glasses of their office and computer were broken and damaged. On the basis of this report FIR No. 200/2000 at P. S. Paharganj was registered against the other side including Raj Kumar (complainant in case FIR 199/2000 ).

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

( 5 ) LEARNED APP for State raised preliminary objection and argued that in view of the specific bar contained under section 18 of the SC/st Act, petition under Section 438 criminal PROCEDURE CODE for grant of pre arrest bail is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in State of m. P. and Anr. vs. Ram Kishna Balothia and Anr. , AIR 1995, sc, 1198. Wherein it was held:

"the above statement graphically describes the social conditions which motivated the said legislation. It is pointed o