CRA-S-3727-2025 1 101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-3727-2025 DECIDED ON: 13.07.2026 GURTEJ SINGH .....APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SANJAY VASHISTH , J (ORAL) 1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 05.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby concession of anticipatory bail has been granted to respondent No.2 namely Harmeet Singh, in case, FIR No.184 dated 22.08.2025, under sections 115(2), 127(1) of BNS, 2023 and section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda. 2. Initially, complainant Karanveer Singh himself, moved a complaint on 31.05.2025, in regard to an incident dated 30.05.2025, and thereupon, when no action was taken, after a period of 16 days, another complaint was moved by the Karanveer Singh’s mother namely LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-3727-2025 2 Swarandeep Kaur, with the allegation that at about 2:30 p.m. on 30.05.2025, her 15-year-old son, namely Karanveer Singh, was crossing the road when Harmeet Singh allegedly caught hold of him by his hair and forcibly took him inside his house, where he subjected the child to severe beatings. Thereafter, Harmeet Singh called the complainant and her husband to his house and informed them that Karanveer Singh had himself come there. It was alleged that the child had been brutally assaulted by Harmeet Singh along with other members of his family. Complainant and her husband somehow managed to rescue their son after considerable difficulty. Thereafter, complainant's husband immediately took the child on his motorcycle to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, for medical treatment. It was further alleged that while complainant and her daughter were alone at their house, Bittu Singh @ Nepali entered their residence, while certain unidentified persons remained standing outside. Bittu Singh @ Nepali allegedly threatened that if the matter was reported to the police, they would abduct the complainant's daughter. He further claimed that they possessed ample weapons and would eliminate the entire family. While hurling abuses and extending threats to kill them, he allegedly left the house. 3. On the basis of these allegations, complainant submitted an application, which was marked for enquiry by the Punjab Raj Scheduled Castes Commission to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-3727-2025 3 vide letter dated 25.06.2025. Upon completion of the enquiry, a report was submitted, pursuant to which present FIR came to be registered. 4. While considering the prayer for anticipatory bail filed by respondent No.2, Harmeet Singh, the Court, in the impugned order dated 05.09.2025, noticed that specific allegation regarding trespass into the complainant's house, use of caste-based abusive language ("Kutiyo, Chuhriyo, Dhedo"), threats to abduct the complainant's daughter, and threats to eliminate entire family with the help of weapons, had been attributed to Bittu Singh @ Nepali. The Court also noticed that a separate complaint had been submitted by Gurtej Singh (a relative of the complainant), which was enquired into by the Superintendent of Police (Investigation), Bathinda. During enquiry, it was found that allegations made by Swarandeep Kaur were inconsistent with the statement of victim-child, Karanveer Singh, which had also been recorded at AIIMS Hospital. 5. Taking note of the contradictions in the statements of victim- child Karanveer Singh, his mother Swarandeep Kaur, his father Harmail Singh, and their relative Gurtej Singh, the enquiry report was submitted accordingly. 6. While adjudicating anticipatory bail application of Harmeet Singh, vide impugned order dated 05.09.2025, the Court also considered the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as discussed in the case titled as ‘ Kiran v. LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-3727-2025 4 Rajkumar Jivraj Jain , SLP (Crl.) No.8169 of 2025’, wherein it has been categorically held that:- “6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off. 6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code. 6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.” 7. In paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, the Court concluded that principal allegations, attracting the provisions of SC/ST Act had been levelled against Bittu Singh @ Nepali, who had not even been arrayed as an accused in the case, and no prima facie case under the LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-3727-2025 5 said provisions was made out against respondent No.2, namely Harmeet Singh. 8. In view of the well reasoned order already passed by the Court below, that too, by taking note of the observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court, at the earlier instance, this Court does not find any reason to cause any interference in the impugned order. Therefore, present appeal is dismissed. 9. Since this Court has already taken note of the factual allegations and the reasons assigned in the impugned order, there is no necessity to examine the aspect that appellant has challenged only the interim order granting bail, without placing on record the final order whereby such bail was subsequently confirmed. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.13 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh