CRA-S-382 IN 261 Babli and a Vers State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. anticipatory them, unde and 3(1)(s Atrocities) 2. noticed her regarding Singh, both On reachin 3825-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA i and another Versus of Haryana and others AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Harya Ms. Monika Jangra, Advocate **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Appellants have filed the ipatory bail in case FIR No. 319 date under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and cities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Kala Relevant facts as emerging ed hereinbelow:- On 6.11.2025, an intimation w ing admission of injured Shri Niw both residents of village Basana, Di ching at CHC, Kalanaur, it came to 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRA-S-3825-2025 Date of Decision: 9.1.2026 …Appellants. …Respondents. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. ate for the appellants. , Haryana. vocate for respondent No.2. the present appeal for grant o dated 07.11.2025, registered again 333, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v Scheduled Tribe (Prevention o Kalanaur, District Rohtak. rging from documents on record b ion was received in the Police Statio Niwas and Sanjay, son of Satyawa a, District Rohtak, in CHC, Kalanau me to his notice that injured has bee ents. rant of against 3(2)(va) tion of cord be tation yawan anaur. s been GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 referred to 7.11.2025, hospital an injured, on therein tha law, Pinki (appellant (Pinki) as her positio very soon. mood. Lat her sons M shop of co language a screw drive his rescue complainan assailants police auth all the inju registered a BNS and S Tribe (Prev District Ro 3825-2025 -2 d to Government Hospital, Rohtak 025, HC Pawan Kumar along with C l and after taking permission from , one of them, namely, Shri Niwas g that he is running a grocery shop n inki is Sarpanch of village Basana. lant No.1) came to their house and as to why MNREGA wages have n sition and assured that the money w on. Though at that point of time, B Later on, around 7 PM, aforesaid ns Manjeet, Ankit and daughter Jy f complainant and without any pro ge as also assaulted him. As pe driver in his stomach. When Sonu ( scue, he was also not spared. inant, people started gathering n nts including two appellants fled a authorities to take legal action agai On the basis of the said comp he injured, a formal case vide FIR tered against the appellants, under Sec and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19 Rohtak. 2- htak. On the following day, i.e., o ith Constable Priyanka arrived at th from Doctor on duty, questioned th as gave a written complaint pointin op next to his house. His daughter- na. In the evening of 6.11.2025, Bab and questioned his daughter-in-la ve not been cleared. Pinki explaine ey would be paid by the Governme e, Babli left the spot, but in an ang aid Babli (appellant No.1) along wi Jyoti (appellant No.2) entered th y provocation again used derogato s per complainant, Manjeet stabbe nu (worker of complainant) rushed d. On hearing hue and cries g near at which point in time, th ed away. Complainant requested th against the accused. complaint and Medico legal report o FIR No. 319 dated 07.11.2025, wa er Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 3(5) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule ct, 1989, at Police Station Kalanau .e., on at the ed the inting -in- Babli law lained nment angry g with ed the gatory abbed hed to ies of e, the ed the eport of was , 3(5) of heduled alanaur, GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3. grant of an Rohtak, wh same, the p 4. been falsely levelled ag Sections 11 offences un Learned co lodging the the compla members, a complainan police did n registered a appellants. when appr record, no learned cou interrogatio nonetheless Investigatin concession 3825-2025 -3 Apprehending their arrest, app t of anticipatory bail before the lear ak, which was dismissed vide order da , the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel, at the outs falsely implicated in the present case. led against them. Initially, the FIR w ons 115(2), 351(3), 333, 3(5) of BNS ces under Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)( ned counsel further submits that un ing the FIR, suggests that incident has omplainant party only with a view to bers, as also to extract illegal monetary Continuing further learned c lainant party had assaulted the appell e did not initiate action on their compl tered against them. Further, no specifi llants. Learned counsel next submits th appreciated in the light of conne d, no offence u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST ed counsel, though presence of appel rogation, as nothing is to be recovere theless willing to join the investigatio stigating Officer. Primarily on thes ession of pre-arrest bail be granted to t 3- st, appellants moved an application fo learned Additional Sessions Judg der dated 28.11.2025. Aggrieved of th e outset, submits that appellants hav se. No specific allegations have bee FIR was registered against them und f BNS and later on, as an after though 3(1)(s) of SC and ST Act were adde hat unexplained delay of one day nt has been given a different colour b ew to harass appellants and their fami onetary benefit from them. rned counsel submits that in fact th appellants but for reasons best know complaint and rather false FIR has b specific injury has been attributed to th mits that allegations levelled in the FIR connecting circumstances brought o C/ST Act is made out. Further as p appellants, is not needed for custodi covered at their instance, but they a stigation as and when called for by th these grounds, it was prayed th ed to the appellants. tion for Judge, d of the ts have ve been m under thought, e added. day in lour by r family fact the known, een d to the the FIR, ught on r as per ustodial they are r by the ed that GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 5. Superintend 12 and 13 prosecution Pinki on ac she in conn arrived at Sanjay @ S who was a and also us party. Section 18 illegality or learned Ad submits tha on the intr prayed for. 6. through the 7. contentions counsel, it Hon'ble Su with an app 3825-2025 -4 Reply by way of an affidavit o rintendent of Police, District Rohtak h nd 13 thereof, the role of the appella cution, appellant No.1 abused comp i on account of non receipt of wages n connivance with her sons Manjeet, ed at the shop of complainant and ga ay @ Sonu. Further, at the instance of was armed with Screw Driver stabbe lso used derogatory words in the nam Learned State counsel subm on 18 of the SC/ST Act is attracted in ality or infirmity in the impugned orde ed Additional Sessions Judge, Rohta its that custodial interrogation of the a e intricacies involved in the case. D d for. I have heard the learned co gh the documents on record. Before expressing any opin ntions raised by learned counsel for sel, it would be appropriate to refer ble Supreme Court, wherein the factor an application for grant of anticipatory 4- idavit of Mr. Gulab Singh, HPS Depu htak has been placed on record. In para appellants has been specified. As p complainant and her daughter-in-la wages under MNREGA and thereafte anjeet, Ankit and appellant No.2 aga nd gave slaps/fist blows to him (c) an ance of appellant No.1, her son Manje stabbed Sanjay @ Sonu with the sam he name of ‘Caste’ against complaina submits that the bar created und cted in the present case. There being n d order dated 28.11.2025 passed by th Rohtak. Learned State counsel furth f the appellants is needed to throw lig Dismissal of the petition has bee ed counsel for the parties and gon opinion on the merits of the riv for the petitioner and learned Sta refer to certain relevant judgments o factors to be kept in mind while dealin ipatory bail, have been discussed. Deputy In paras As per law ereafter, again and Manjeet he same plainant d under eing no d by the further ow light as been d gone he rival ed State ents of dealing GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 8. Directorate 9. “Ms. X Vs. 279) held a 3825-2025 -5 Hon’ble the Supreme Cou orate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC “67. Ordinarily, arrest is investigation to secure not onl several other purposes. Power is an extraordinary power an sparingly. The privilege of the only in exceptional cases. T upon the court has to be prope mind as to the nature and gra of applicant fleeing justice an it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to some ex investigation of an offence circumspect while exercisin anticipatory bail. Anticipator matter of rule and it has to b convinced that exceptional cir extraordinary remedy.” Hon’ble the Supreme Court w Vs. The State of Maharashtra and eld as under:- “11.1. We propose to take a that ought to govern grant of a of decisions of this court tha while deciding an application 5- Court in “P. Chidambaram v 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: is a part of procedure of th t only the presence of the accused b ower under Section 438 Cr.P.C 197 r and the same has to be exercise f the pre-arrest bail should be grante s. The judicial discretion conferre roperly exercised after application gravity of the accusation; possibili e and other factors to decide wheth ant of anticipatory bail. Grant e extent interferes in the sphere nce and hence, the court must b cising such power for grant atory bail is not to be granted as to be granted only when the court l circumstances exist to resort to th ourt while deciding the case titled a and another” (2023 SCC Online S e a quick look at the consideration t of anticipatory bail. There are a lin that have underscored the fact th tion for bail, the court ought to refra m vs. der:- f the ed but 1973 rcised ranted erred tion of ibility hether nt of ere of st be nt of as a ourt is to that titled as ne SC ations a line ct that efrain GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 3825-2025 -6 from undertaking a detailed a being on the prima facie issue reasonable grounds that woul committed the offence or thos seriousness of the offence. The deep into the analysis of the e reasons, namely, to prevent an the prosecution or the defence and to keep all aspects of t concluded. 12. In Prasanta Kumar Sa Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Ch Bench of this Court had highli borne in mind while con application and had stated tha "9. We are of the opinion tha unsustainable. It is trite that interfere with an order passe rejecting bail to the accused. upon the High Court to exe cautiously and strictly in com laid down in a plethora of dec It is well settled that, among o be borne in mind while conside (i) whether there is any prim believe that the accused had co (ii) nature and gravity of the a (iii)severity of the punishment 6- ed analysis of the evidence, the focu ssues including consideration of som would go to show if the accused ha those facts that would reflect on th . The self-imposed restraint on delvin the evidence at that stage is for val nt any prejudice to the case set up b ence likely to be taken by the accuse of the matter open till the trial r Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasan h Chatterjee and another), a Divisio ighlighted the factors that ought to b considering the anticipatory ba that :- n that the impugned order is clear that this Court does not, normall assed by the High Court granting o sed. However, it is equally incumbe exercise its discretion judiciousl compliance with the basic principl f decisions of this Court on the poin ng other circumstances, the factors nsidering an application for bail are prima facie or reasonable ground ad committed the offence; he accusation; ent in the event of conviction; focus f some d has on the elving valid up by cused rial is asanta ivision t to be bail learly mally, ing or mbent iously, ciples point. tors to l are: und to GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 10. The State Supreme C ought not t 11. have alread 18 of the S Jain and a SC/ST Act, 3825-2025 -7 (iv)danger of the accused abs bail; (v) character, behaviour, mea accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence be (vii) reasonable apprehension and (viii) danger, of course, of just bail.” In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ tate of Maharashtra and another, eme Court held that “Anticipatory ba not to be granted in a routine manne Factual aspects of the case le already been noted in para 2 of this f the SC/ST Act, Hon’ble Supreme Co nd another, 2025(4) RCR (Criminal “5.2 It is evident from the ab expressly excludes the applica of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Cr.PC”). In another words, i arrest of a person who i committing offence under thi Cr.P.C. would not be availabl the benefit of anticipatory ba offences alleged under the SC the SC/ST Act would operate.” It would also be appropriate to T Act, which reads as under:- “commits any offence specif person or property, knowing t 7- absconding or fleeing, if released o means, position and standing of th ce being repeated; sion of the witnesses being influence justice being thwarted by grant of etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon’b ry bail is an exceptional remedy an nner.” case leading to the lodging of the FI f this order. While interpreting Sectio me Court in Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivr inal) 18, held as under:- e above provision of Section 18 that plicability of Section 438 of the Cod 973 (“hereinafter referred to as “th ds, in relation to any case involvin o is facing the accusation abo r this Act, protection of Section 43 ilable. The Legislature has taken awa y bail in respect of the arrest for th e SC/ST Act. The bar in Section 18 ate.” riate to refer to Section 3(2)(va) of the pecified in the Schedule, against ing that such person is a member of sed on of the enced; of av vs. Hon’ble y and the FIR Section Jivraj that it Code s “the olving about n 438 away or the 18 of of the inst a er of a GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-382 mentioned the Schedu 12. opinion tha Caste and S from the b make out a them for th 13. 09.01.2026 gbs 3825-2025 -8 Scheduled Caste or a Schedule to such member, shall be pun specified under the Indian Pe offences and shall also be liab The offences with which the ioned in the Schedule appended along cheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci In view of discussion made ion that prima facie offence under Se e and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of the bare reading of the FIR. Appella out a case of exceptional depravity/h for the grant of this extra ordinary reli The appeal being devoid of me .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 8- eduled Tribe or such property belong punishable with such punishment a n Penal Code (45 of 1860) for suc liable to fine;” h the appellants have been charged a along with The Scheduled Castes an Atrocities) Act, 1989. made hereinabove, the Court is of th der Section 3(2)(va) of the Schedule on of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made o ppellants have, thus, not been able ravity/hardship in their favour, entitlin ry relief of pre-arrest bail. of merit, is hereby dismissed. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No elongs ent as r such rged are stes and s of the heduled ade out able to entitling NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.01.21 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document