CRA-S-1099 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT HARSHIT STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by SURYA P prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, 127(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of and Section 3 of (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ‘SC/ST Act’ No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, Faridabad, District Fa 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CR DATE OF DECISION HARSHIT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Argued by: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana assisted by ASI Rinku. Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This appeal has been filed by the prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, 127(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(2) of ‘the and Section 3 of ‘the Scheduled Ca (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’. For the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, Faridabad, District Faridabad. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1099-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :07.05.2026 .....APPELLANT VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate respondents No.2 and 3. appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, ‘the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 he Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes , hereinafter being referred to as or the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, .2026 APPELLANT .....RESPONDENTS , who is facing a prosecution for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 115, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ stes and the Scheduled Tribes , hereinafter being referred to as or the commission of abovementioned offence, the FIR No.301 dated 28.09.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Saran, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 2. approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST Act, for grant of anticipatory bail order dated 24.03.2026 dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. 3. aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ respondent No.2 was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belong and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, namely ‘Hemant’, was with sticks and steel rods respondent No.2 that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and 8-10 other pers words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2 told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, and steel rods 4. ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Ma were using casteist 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 As per appellant, in the abovementioned approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST Act, for grant of anticipatory bail, but the learned Special Judge order dated 24.03.2026, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ respondent No.2), hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belong and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, namely ‘Hemant’, was under attack by some as with sticks and steel rods, at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per respondent No.2, he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and 10 other persons had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2 told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, and steel rods, while using casteist slurs. The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Ma were using casteist abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video 2 in the abovementioned case, he had approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST , but the learned Special Judge, by virtue of , hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ , hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only was alleged by the respondent No.2 that he belonged to Scheduled Castes, and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, by some assailants, who were armed at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per , he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory words in the name of his caste. According to respondent No.2, his brother told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the assailants snatched his mobile phone and thereafter, thrashed him with sticks The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked his way also, but he managed to escape. As per complainant, he filed complaint against ‘Mahesh’, ‘Rakesh’ and wife of ‘Mahesh’, when they abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video case, he had approached the Court of learned Special Judge, designated under SC/ST by virtue of , hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, shell, the facts emerging from record are that the aforesaid FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Anand’, (the complainant/ , hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ only. It to Scheduled Castes, and that on 27.09.2025 at about 08:00 pm, he came to know that his brother, , who were armed at Ramphal Mandi Chacha Chowk. As per , he rushed to the spot, where his brother met him and told that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Ajay’, ‘Manu’, a barber shop owner, a bike shop owner, and had waylaid him and hurled abuses by using derogatory , his brother told him that when he tried to record the abovementioned incident, the thrashed him with sticks The respondent No.2 further alleged that his elder brother ‘Dheeraj’, too, had told him that ‘Mahesh’, ‘Manu’ and ‘Ajay’ had blocked filed a , when they abuses to the respondent No.2, duly recorded in video GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned complaint no action was taken against the culprits. 5. abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. 6. 7. the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commissio of crime, and that by cooking in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, contents of provision of SC/ST Act is not made rejection of bail application Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail, is devoid of merit. 8. baring Section in nature, and that there is inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 member. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the perfect example of sheer misuse seal of learned Special Court on the abovementioned appellant has further complicated the situation. 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned complaint no action was taken against the culprits. It is the case of the prosecution that purs abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commissio of crime, and that by cooking-up a false story, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, contents of the FIR in themselves shows that any offence under any provision of SC/ST Act is not made out in the present case, and therefore, rejection of bail application, filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail, is devoid of merit. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that Section-3 of SC/ST Act, all the offences alleged in the FIR are in nature, and that there is no allegation that inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 . According to learned counsel for the appellant, perfect example of sheer misuse of Section seal of learned Special Court on the abovementioned appellant has further complicated the situation. 3 camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned complaint no action was taken against the culprits. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commissio up a false story, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, shows that any offence under any out in the present case, and therefore, filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of r the appellant has also argued that 3 of SC/ST Act, all the offences alleged in the FIR are minor no allegation that any grievous injury was inflicted on the person of brother of respondent No.2 or any other fam . According to learned counsel for the appellant, the instant case is of Section-3 of SC/ST Act, and that the seal of learned Special Court on the abovementioned illegal act of the appellant has further complicated the situation. camera. According to respondent No.2, despite the abovementioned uant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission up a false story, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the shows that any offence under any out in the present case, and therefore, filed by the appellant, by the Court of learned Special Judge, merely, on the premise that there is a bar for grant of r the appellant has also argued that minor any grievous injury was or any other family the instant case is 3 of SC/ST Act, and that the illegal act of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 9. counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by the appellant or his co above, the learned counsel for the appellant enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. 10. for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case contents of make it abundantly clear that there was casteist sl co-accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of assault and belonged complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with regard to cannot claim th of SC/ST Act 11. 12. Court of India in the case of ‘Kiran V/s Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.’ 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has propounded that where allegations in FIR commission of offe 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be given. 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 With regard to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by the appellant or his co-accused was at publ above, the learned counsel for the appellant enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case contents of make it abundantly clear that there was casteist sl accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of ult and belonged to Scheduled Caste complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with regard to use of casteist slur at public place in public view, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of bar under Section of SC/ST Act. The record has been perused carefully. Similar situation has been dealt with by the Court of India in the case of ‘Kiran V/s Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.’ 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has propounded that where allegations in FIR commission of offence under Section-3 of SC/ST Act, 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be 4 With regard to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by accused was at public place in public view. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel, in the present case contents of the FIR make it abundantly clear that there was casteist slur by the appellant & accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of to Scheduled Caste. As per learned counsel for the complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with of casteist slur at public place in public view, the appellant e benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of bar under Section The record has been perused carefully. Similar situation has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Kiran V/s Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.’ AIR 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has propounded that where allegations in FIR prima facie disclosed the 3 of SC/ST Act, the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be With regard to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation that the casteist slur by ic place in public view. In view of bar enshrined under Section 18 of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. FIR his accused against the brother of respondent No.2, who was victim of an . As per learned counsel for the complainant, in view of above, once there are specific allegations with of casteist slur at public place in public view, the appellant e benefit of anticipatory bail, in view of bar under Section-18 Hon’ble Supreme AIR 2025 SC 4083. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of disclosed the bar under Section- 18 of SC/ST Act is attracted and the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 13. Maharashtra & Ors.’ AIR 2012 SC 3316, the accused abu complainant and her husband Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the abovementioned case accused to be Section-18 of SC/ST Act. 14. of abovementioned principles of law, it transpires that: i. ii. iii. iv. 15. taken into consideration of learned counsel for the appellant has got no force that Section-3 of SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case. 16. contained in the FIR, the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act is made out, it is hereby observed that in the given fact si Section 18 of SC/ST Act are attracted. Since as per Section 18 of SC/ST 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 In the case of ‘Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors.’ AIR 2012 SC 3316, the accused abu complainant and her husband, by calling their caste and assaulted them Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the abovementioned case to be ineligible for anticipatory bail 18 of SC/ST Act. If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light of abovementioned principles of law, it transpires that: that in the present case, there is victim belongs to Scheduled Castes; ii. that there is no claim of the appellant that he, too, belongs to Scheduled Castes; iii. that as per contents of FIR, the incident had taken place at a public place in public view; and iv. that as per allegations contained in the FIR, abuses in the name of caste were used by the appellant to insult the victim. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors is taken into consideration, it transpires that in the present case, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant has got no force that 3 of SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case. Once it has been observed that on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act is made out, it is hereby observed that in the given fact si Section 18 of SC/ST Act are attracted. Since as per Section 18 of SC/ST 5 In the case of ‘Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors.’ AIR 2012 SC 3316, the accused abused the by calling their caste and assaulted them. T Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the abovementioned case found ineligible for anticipatory bail, in view of bar created under If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light of abovementioned principles of law, it transpires that:- that in the present case, there is no dispute qua the fact that the victim belongs to Scheduled Castes; no claim of the appellant that he, too, belongs to that as per contents of FIR, the incident had taken place at a public place in public view; and that as per allegations contained in the FIR, abuses in the name ed by the appellant to insult the victim. of all the abovementioned factors is , it transpires that in the present case, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant has got no force that provisions of 3 of SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case. Once it has been observed that on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act is made out, it is hereby observed that in the given fact situation, the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST Act are attracted. Since as per Section 18 of SC/ST In the case of ‘Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. V/s State of sed the . The found the in view of bar created under If the factual matrix of the present case is analyzed in the light no dispute qua the fact that the no claim of the appellant that he, too, belongs to that as per contents of FIR, the incident had taken place at a that as per allegations contained in the FIR, abuses in the name of all the abovementioned factors is , it transpires that in the present case, this argument ns of Once it has been observed that on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act is made out, tuation, the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST Act are attracted. Since as per Section 18 of SC/ST GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1099 Act, there is a bar to accord the benefit of anticipatory bail to an accused, who has committed the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is hereby observed that no error of judgment, whatsoever, has been committed by the learned Special Judge filed by the appellant. 17. that there is no s and the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed 18. disposed of, accordin 19. shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 20. application 07.05.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 1099-2026(O&M) 8587 , there is a bar to accord the benefit of anticipatory bail to an accused, who has committed the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is hereby ed that no error of judgment, whatsoever, has been committed by the learned Special Judge, while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant. In view of abovementioned observations, it is hereby observed there is no scope for indulgence or interference in the impugned order and the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The same is dismissed, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main appeal applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 , there is a bar to accord the benefit of anticipatory bail to an accused, who has committed the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is hereby ed that no error of judgment, whatsoever, has been committed by the while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail In view of abovementioned observations, it is hereby observed cope for indulgence or interference in the impugned order and the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The same is Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No , there is a bar to accord the benefit of anticipatory bail to an accused, who has committed the offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is hereby ed that no error of judgment, whatsoever, has been committed by the while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail In view of abovementioned observations, it is hereby observed cope for indulgence or interference in the impugned order and the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The same is Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document