- (1.) Palwinder Singh and Nirbhinder Singh, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in a complaint case titled as 'Swaran Singh v. Ajit Singh and others' under the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and sections 148, 452 and 504 read with section 149 IPC. While issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions on 17.04.2012:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners Ajit Singh was the Sarpanch of village Sarhala and that respondent no.2, who has filed a complaint against the petitioners and others, has encroached upon a portion of the village pond. According to him, the father of the petitioners had made an application to Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Majitha(in short 'the BDPO') about the encroachment of the area of village pond by respondent no.2 and the BDPO had written in this regard to Station House Officer concerned to take action against respondent no.2. According to him, as a counter blast to that application, Swaran Singh, respondent no.2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners inter-alia for an offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989( for short 'the Act'). He has also submitted that the allegations contained in the complaint do not disclose an offence under the aforesaid provisions to have committed because the alleged act is said to have been committed in the house of respondent no.2 and not in public view as is required by the provisions of the Act."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has added that Ajit Singh, the main accused has been granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He has further submitted that the petitioners have already appeared before learned trial court in pursuance of the directions given vide orders dated 17.04.2012 and they have been admitted to interim bail.
(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners on 17.04.2012 are not correct. According to him, the occurrence took place on 11.01.2007 while the resolution of the gram panchayat and the subsequent complaint against the petitioners are of 12.01.2007. He has further submitted that the way the petitioners behaved with the women folk of the complainant is worth consideration on account of which they should not be granted bail.;