CRA-S-1730-202 IN THE H LAKHWINDER STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S Mr. R **** MANISHA BATR 1. The i A of the Schedule Act, 1989 (for sh passed by the Cou FIR No.169 dated Nyaya Sanhita, 20 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH DER SINGH Versus PUNJAB AND ANOTHER he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the ap Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for respon **** BATRA, J. The instant appeal has been filed by t heduled Caste and the Scheduled Tri (for short “SC/ST Act”) challenging e Court of Additional Sessions Judge dated 25.07.2025 registered under Se ita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 3 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRA-S-1730-2026 (O&M) ... Appellant ...Respondents served 19.08.2026 onounced 21.08.2026 loaded on the 21.08.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA appellant respondent No.2 d by the appellant under Section 14- ed Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) enging the order dated 12.03.2026 Judge, Patiala in case arising out of der Sections 108, 3(5) of Bharatiya ction 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act - ities) 2026 ut of atiya Act AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1730-202 added later on) at for grant of regula 2. Brief appeal are that t statement recorde 25.07.2025, he alo friend of his son D Singh @ Lakkha w to drive as emplo Lakkha accused b Rs.65,500/- from and his friend Ha Singh, his nephew came to their h deteriorating healt By alleging that t appellant had hara them to commit su 3. After The accused Desh arrested on 30.07 Lakha, Sharanjit S 2026 (O&M) 2 on) at Police Station Patran, District P regular bail as filed by the appellant ha Brief facts of the case relevant for t that the aforementioned FIR was r recorded by the complainant Mal he along with his family members and s son Davinder Singh, were present in kkha whose trucks his son Davinder S employees, called them at his shop. A used both of them of having comm from his truck and because of that re nd Harpreet Singh were extended se ephew, brother and the appellant. Fee eir house and consumed Celpha g health condition, they were rushed to that the accused Lakhwinder Singh, d harassed and extended beatings to th mit suicide, the complainant prayed fo After registration of FIR, investigatio Desh Raj @ Dessa was arrested on 2 30.07.2025. Subsequently, the co- anjit Singh @ Sharan were arrested. strict Patiala, whereby an application lant had been dismissed. t for the purpose of disposal of this was registered on the basis of a Malkit Singh alleging that on ers and one Harpreet Singh who was sent in his house when Lakhwinder inder Singh and Harpreet Singh used hop. Accused Lakhwinder Singh @ committed theft of an amount of that reason, his son Davinder Singh ded severe beatings by Lakhwinder . Feeling humiliated, both of them phas tablets. On finding their shed to hospital but died on the way. Singh, his nephew, brother and the gs to the victims, thereby compelling yed for taking action in the matter. stigation proceedings were initiated. d on 28.07.2025. The appellant was -accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Offence under Section 3(1)(s) ation this of a t on was inder used h @ t of ingh inder them their way. the lling ated. t was h @ ) AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1730-202 of the SC/ST A Investigation now 4. The a before the learned impugned order da 5. It is a order dated 12.03. aside as while pas ignored the fact th Section 108 of BN Section 3(2)(va) o under Section 108 of IPC is not a sc material collected suicide by the v whatsoever. Co- already been exten weighs in favour o conclude. No us custody any more argued that the im accepted and the 2026 (O&M) 3 ST Act was added as the victim n now stands concluded. The appellant had moved an applica earned trial Court but the same had b rder dated 12.03.2026. It is argued by learned counsel for th 12.03.2026 is not sustainable in the ey ile passing the same, the Court of learn fact that the ingredients for commissio of BNS were not at all attracted in th )(va) of the SC/ST Act are not attracted n 108 of BNS which is pari materia ot a scheduled offence as per the Sch llected by the investigating agency d the victims had been abetted by t -accused Sharanjit Singh @ Shara n extended the benefit of bail by this C vour of the appellant. The trial is like useful purpose would be served more. The antecedents of the appell the impugned order is liable to be set a d the appellant deserves to be extended ictim belonged to SC community. application for grant of regular bail had been dismissed by passing the l for the appellant that the impugned the eyes of law and is liable to be set of learned Additional Sessions Judge mission of offence punishable under d in this case. Even the provisions of ttracted in this case since the offence ria with offence under Section 306 he Schedule of the SC/ST Act. The ency does not at all prove that the by the appellant in any manner Sharan and Lakhwinder Singh have y this Court. The principle of parity is likely to take considerable time to erved by detaining the appellant in appellant are clean. It is, therefore, e set aside, the appeal deserves to be tended the benefit of bail. nity. bail g the gned e set udge nder ns of ence 306 The t the nner have arity e to nt in fore, to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1730-202 6. Learn counsel for respo victims were hara caste and by mak highly disturbed d The allegations ag appellant intimida benefit of bail. Th not warrant any in deserve to be allow 7. This C for the parties at co 8. The v Celphas tablets be the co-accused ha committed theft Lakhwinder Singh postmortem exam victims. In the ci allegations in the F of debate as to wh attracted in this c assessment and ev 2026 (O&M) 4 Learned Assistant Advocate Genera respondent No.2/complainant has e harassed by the appellant and the co y making allegations of committing rbed due to this fact and took extrem ons against the appellant are serious i timidating the prosecution witnesses The order passed by the learned A any interference. It is, therefore, stre e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The victims are alleged to have died lets being perturbed by the fact that th sed had extended beatings to him o theft of some money from the tru Singh. The victims did not leave examination report, no injury was fo the circumstances peculiar to the ca n the FIR, this Court is of the consider to whether the provisions of offence this case or not? Such question ha and evaluation of evidence to be pro eneral, Punjab assisted by learned t has vehemently argued that the the co-accused in the name of their itting theft of money. They were extreme step of committing suicide. rious in nature. There are chances of tnesses or absconding, if extended rned Additional Sessions Judge does re, stressed that the appeal does not ubmissions made by learned counsel died a suicidal death by consuming that the present appellant along with him on the ground that they had the truck belonging to co-accused leave any suicide note. As per the as found on the dead bodies of the the case and on going through the nsidered opinion that it is a question fence under Section 108 of BNS are ion has to be decided on thorough be produced at trial and not at this rned the their were cide. es of nded does s not unsel ming with had used r the f the the stion S are ough t this AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-1730-202 stage. Further, so concerned, since offence under Sec Act. Therefore, appellant is not re stands concluded. of 32 prosecution purpose would be antecedents of the bail is the rule an should not be a rep should not becom impugned order is bail, subject to his of learned trial Co 9. It is, not be construed a 10. Since any, is rendered in 21.08.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 5 er, so far as offence under Section since the offence under Section 108 er Section 306 of IPC) is not an offen , prima facie ingredients of the sa not required for the purpose of furt luded. The trial will take considerable cution witnesses have been examine uld be served by detaining the appella of the appellant are clean. The well se rule and jail is an exception. Pre tria e a replica of post conviction sentenci become punitive. Accordingly, the p rder is set aside. The appellant is ord to his furnishing personal as well as s ial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concer It is, however, clarified that observa rued as an expression of opinion on th Since the main appeal has been all ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No ection 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act is on 108 of BNS (pari materia with offence scheduled under the SC/ST the same are also not attracted. The of further investigation as the same erable time to conclude as none out amined so far. As such, no fruitful appellant in custody any more. The well settled proposition of law is that re trial incarceration of an accused ntencing. The detention prior to trial the present appeal is allowed. The is ordered to be released on regular ell as surety bonds to the satisfaction concerned. bservations made hereinabove shall the merits of the case. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No is with /ST . The same e out itful The that used trial The gular ction shall n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.08.21 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.