Chandigarh, February 25
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday “made absolute” or confirmed the interim anticipatory bail granted to actor Munmun Dutta in a case registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Disposing of her plea, Justice Avneesh Jhingan of the High Court asserted the petitioner, vide order dated February 4, was directed to join the investigation subject to compliance of condition envisaged in the CrPC. The State counsel, on instructions from a deputy superintendent of police, submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was co-operating. Justice Jhingan added the interim bail granted to her on February 4 was made absolute as custodial interrogation was not needed.
Best known for her portrayal of Babita Iyer in Hindi serial ‘Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah’, Dutta had moved the Court for anticipatory bail through counsel Ruchi Sekhri in an FIR registered in May last year under Sections 3(1)(u) of the Act at city police station in Hansi district. Four FIRs, registered for the same incident, were clubbed with the present case after a petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
Justice Jhingan, on the previous date of hearing, had observed it would be a debatable issue whether the use of an objectionable term for describing herself would itself be enough to fall within the ambit of the Act.
“This Court exercises self restrain from saying that ‘prima-facie’ the provisions of Act are not applicable, as it may affect the investigation and the trial,” Justice Jhingan asserted. Referring to a plethora of Supreme Court judgments, Justice Jhingan added it would not be appropriate at the current stage for the High Court to hold a mini-trial to conclude whether the offence under Section 3 of the SC&ST Act was made out. “It would not be a stage to dilate as to whether a loosely used term would be enough to bring the issue within the teeth of the provisions of the Act”.
Justice Jhingan had asserted the petitioner was related to media and used the objectionable term in a video. As per the contention raised, the objectionable term was used by the petitioner for herself and not for any other person belonging to any particular community.
