CRA-S-3224-202 IN THE H (140) SUMAN LATA STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. N Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The dated 01.10.2025 Jhajjar in case ar Sections 3(1)(r) (Prevention of At Beri, District Jhajj by the appellant ha 2. Brief appeal are that the complaint submitt 2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH TA Versus HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS B.S. Mamli, Advocate for the app Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for resp ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant appeal has been filed by .2025 passed by the Court of Learne ase arising out of FIR No.231 dated (1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of Scheduled C of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short t Jhajjar whereby the application for g llant had been dismissed. Brief facts of the case relevant for hat the aforementioned FIR was regis ubmitted by the complainant-Deepak K JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRA-S-3224-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.03.2026 ... Appellant ...Respondents ANISHA BATRA
the appellant or respondent No.2 by the appellant against the order Learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 20.08.2025 registered under led Caste and Scheduled Tribes hort ‘SC/ST Act’) at Police Station n for grant of pre-arrest bail as filed t for the purpose of disposal of this s registered on the basis of a written epak Kumar alleging therein that on 2026 llant
s order dge, nder ribes ation filed this ritten at on AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 28.01.2023, he wa and watched a vi comments made o Police employee against the mem community. She h “Unk rahti hoi b By al had hurt the sentim belonged and had the petitioner. 3. After and are underway for grant of pre- Additional Sessio aggrieved from the 4. It is a order is not sustain Trial Court ignor comment on YouT 2025 (O&M) 2 he was watching videos in his mobile d a video at ND Haryana channel. ade on that video and found that the loyee had given comments while u members of Scheduled Caste com She had publicly and openly written t Unka to varsha biharan hai unka ke ahti chudi bhi nahin rahti chamari oi b bhaj h” By alleging that by using the aforem sentiments of members of SC commu d had insulted them, he, therefore, pr After registration of FIR, investigati erway. Apprehending her arrest, the -arrest bail which has been dismi Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide order om the above order, the instant appeal It is argued by learned counsel for th sustainable in the eyes of law as while ignored the fact that the appellant YouTube video. In fact, her daughte obile phone through YouTube App. nel. He started going through the hat the petitioner, who is a Haryana hile using objectionable language e community casting slurs on the ritten the following words :- ka ke karle jinka biharan bhi nahin ari bhi nahin rahti aur ghr p aayi forementioned words, the petitioner ommunity to which the complainant ore, prayed for taking action against stigation proceedings were initiated st, the petitioner filed an application dismissed by the Court of Learned order dated 01.10.2025. Feeling appeal has been filed. l for the appellant that the impugned s while passing the same, the learned ellant herself had never made any aughter studying in 9th standard had App. the yana uage the hin ayi ioner inant ainst iated ation rned eling gned ed any had AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 been using her ph video. The YouT the father of the comment to the c ingredients for co are not attracted custodial interroga she is detained i impugned order is and she deserves t 5. Per co respondent No.2 h in nature. The a thereby intending community within will against memb prima facie attrac SC/ST Act was c Sessions Judge, d impugned order a merits or otherwis investigation in co the device/mobile 2025 (O&M) 3 her phone and it was she who made YouTube video on which the comme f the appellant. The appellant has the complainant or any other person for commission of any offence under acted qua her. She has already jo terrogation is not required. No usefu ined in custody. With these subm rder is liable to be set aside and the a erves to be extended benefit of pre-arre Per contra, learned State counsel assi No.2 has argued that the allegations ag The appellant made a comment on nding to intentionally insult, intimida within public view and to promote fe members of such community. The attracted in this case and as such th was certainly applicable. It is argue dge, did not commit any illegality rder and therefore, the same does no therwise. It is further argued that th in compliance of order dated 16.10. mobile phone used for the purpo made the alleged comments on the omment had been posted belongs to t has never made any caste related person of the SC community. The under the provisions of SC/ST Act ady joined the investigation. Her useful purpose would be served, if submissions, it is urged that the d the appeal deserves to be accepted arrest bail. el assisted by learned counsel for the ions against the appellant are serious nt on video uploaded on YouTube timidate the members of SC castes te feelings of enmity hatred or ill- The provisions of SC/ST Act are uch the bar under Section 18 of the argued that the learned Additional ality or irregularity in passing the oes not warrant any interference on hat though the appellant has joined 6.10.2025 and has also handed over purpose of making objectionable n the gs to lated The Act Her d, if t the pted r the rious Tube astes - t are f the ional the e on ined over able AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 comments on the v for grant of pre-ar 18 of the SC/ST A stressed that the ap 6. This C for both the parties 7. The R2/2, photocopy taken place betwee this conversation No.2, the present appellant is shown reason of filing co allegations prima Section 3(1)(r) and under Section 18A bail are not applic extra-ordinary pow petition filed und exercised, if it is r the accused in a c Chauhan vs. Un Hon’ble Apex Co 2025 (O&M) 4 n the video, however, no exceptional o arrest bail is made out in her favou C/ST Act is certainly attracted. With t the appeal is not maintainable and is l This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The respondent No.2-complainant ha copy of transcript of some conversa between the petitioner and respondent ation it is revealed that after filing of resent appellant had made a call to r shown to be questioning the respond ling complaint against her and extendi rima facie make out a case for co )(r) and 3(1)(u) of SC/ST Act. Undou n 18A of the SC/ST Act that the prov applicable to the offences committed ry power to entertain a plea of an accu d under Section 482 of BNSS. H it is revealed that no prima facie mate in a case. Reliance in this regard ca Union of India and others, AIR ex Court considered the impact of Se tional or extra-ordinary circumstance r favour. Moreso, the bar of Section With these broad submissions, it is nd is liable to be set aside. ubmissions made by learned counsel ant has placed on record Annexure nversation which is shown to have ndent No.2. On a cursory perusal of ling of complaint by the respondent ll to respondent No.2 in which the espondent No.2 and asking him the xtending threats to him as well. The for commission of offences under Undoubtedly, despite the bar created e provisions for grant of anticipatory mitted under this Act, this Court has n accused for grant of bail even in a S. However, that power can be material exists warranting arrest of ard can be placed upon Prathvi Raj AIR 2020 SC 1036, wherein the t of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act tance tion , it is unsel xure have al of dent h the the The nder eated atory t has in a n be st of Raj the Act AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 and held that as fa concerned, in case complaint, the Co the instant case, a aforementioned of such, in the consid 18-A of the SC anticipatory bail c mentioned that t compliance of the interrogation migh entitled to seek be that, if no case fo that alone would n reliance can be p another, 2022(4) Supreme Court tha an accused is not against the accuse anticipatory bail. compelling ground present appeal is 2025 (O&M) 5 at as far as the provisions of Section 1 in case where no prima facie materia he Court has inherent power to direct case, as discussed above, a prima fac ned offences has been made out from considered opinion of this Court, the e SC/ST Act certainly apply to bail cannot be granted to the appellan that though the appellant has alre of the order dated 16.10.2025 passed n might not be required, but only on th eek benefit of pre-arrest bail as the we ase for custodial interrogation is mad ould not be a good ground to grant an n be placed upon Sumitha Pradeep 2(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 977, wherei urt that there might be cases in which is not required but that does not me accused should be ignored or overloo bail. In view of the discussion ground to grant the concession of pre al is dismissed. ction 18-A and anticipatory bail are aterial exists warranting arrest in a direct a pre-arrest bail. However, in a facie case for commission of the t from the allegations in the FIR. As rt, the provisions of Section 18 and y to the present case. Therefore, ppellant. At this juncture, it may be s already joined investigation in passed in this case and her custodial y on that account, she cannot be held the well settled proposition of law is s made out by the prosecution, then rant anticipatory bail. In this regard deep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and herein it was observed by Hon’ble which the custodial interrogation of not mean that the prima facie case verlooked and he should be granted ssion as made above, finding no of pre-arrest bail to the appellant, the il are in a er, in f the . As and fore, y be n in odial held aw is then gard nd n’ble on of case nted g no t, the AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-3224-202 8. It is m the purpose of dec as an expression o 9. The respondent No.2 h accordingly. 24.03.2026 Amit Sharma

2025 (O&M) 6 It is made clear that the observations of deciding the present appeal and th sion of opinion on the merits of the ca The application bearing No.CRM No.2 has become infructuous, in view (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

tions made hereinabove are only for and the same shall not be construed the case. CRM-46189-2025 as filed by the view of the order and is disposed of (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
for trued the ed of AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.25 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.