Back
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Rashpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on the allegations. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. court's decision regarding anticipatory bail. (Para 6) |
| 5. final remarks on merits of the case. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT (Oral)
Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
CRM-34598-2023
Application is allowed as prayed and complainant is directed to be impleaded as respondent No.2.
Amended memo of parties filed along with the application is taken on record.
Main case
Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 04.08.2023 whereby the anticipatory bail in case FIR No.124 dated 26.07.2023 under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that the appellant is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in hand as the complainant, who was a Sarpanch, was under a wrong impression that he had been suspended at the behest of the appellant and had also got an administrator appointed in his place. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the appel
The court considered the behavior and history of the complainant's party in filing false complaints as influential in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is established under the SC/ST Act, as per the ruling in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra.
Anticipatory bail is permissible under the SC/ST Act when the FIR fails to establish a prima facie case, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
Anticipatory bail is maintainable when no substantive offence under SC/ST provisions exists.
The court determined that the allegations made under the SC/ST Act lacked sufficient prima facie evidence, hence granting anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail granted in the absence of independent witnesses and indications of misuse of the SC/ST Act.
The mere existence of a conflict involving SC/ST individuals does not automatically substantiate violations under the SC/ST Act when the dispute is fundamentally about land rights.
The court established that allegations under the SC/ST Act require evidence of public view humiliation, which was not present in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
