CRA-S-838 IN 220 Vishal @ T v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. registered Sections 3 (Prevention Station Rai 2. noticed her basis of co of village K in his newl Sanjeev Ku 838-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA al @ Tony of Haryana and another AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Hamid Hussan, Advocate Mr. Vishal Singh, Assistant Ad **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Appellant, an accused in case tered against him for offences unde ons 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled ention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in s Raipur Rani, Panchkula, has filed th Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- Criminal proceedings in the p f complaint lodged by one Krishan ge Khedi, District Panchkula, who newly constructed house, Vishal @ v Kumar, resident of village Khedi 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRA-S-838-2026 Date of Decision: 18.03.202 …Appellant. …Respondents. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. vocate for the appellant. tant Advocate General, Haryana. in case FIR No. 211 dated 23.10.202 s under Sections 351(3) of BNS an eduled Caste and Scheduled Trib (in short “the SC/ST Act”), at Polic filed the present appeal for grant of bai ging from the documents on record b the present case were initiated on th shan Kumar, son of Birbhan, reside ho alleged that while he was prese l @ Tony (present appellant), son hedi, Tehsil and District Panchkul .2026 . 0.2024, NS and Tribe t Police of bail. cord be on the sident resent son of hkula, GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-838 barged insi him (c) a opportunity name of C Primarily, hold of the On the ba 23.10.2024 of the SC/S for bail und Judge, Pan 11.02.202 of bail. 3. well placed has been in taking note examined a before learn on case file (P) further would not of India, principle further the 838-2026 -2 inside, started hurling cheap abuse c) and also threatened to kill h unity. Complainant further allege of Caste were also hurled agai rily, with this backdrop, he requeste f the aforesaid assailant as also to e basis of said complaint, a forma 2024, was registered u/s 351(3) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Raipur R Appellant, who was arrested o ail under Section 483 of BNSS before Panchkula. The same came to .2026. Aggrieved of which, the prese Learned counsel for the appell placed in the society, has been falsely een in custody since 10.1.2025. In lie g note of the fact that both the com ed as PW1 and PW2 (copies of th re learned Additional Sessions Judge, se file), lenient view deserves to be ta urther incarceration would not serv not only be violative of his rights un including right to speedy trial of “Bail is a general rule and inc the submission of learned counsel 2- buses in the name of Caste, assaulte ll him on any suitable convenie lleged that derogatory words in th against his other family member uested the police authorities to catc o to initiate appropriate proceeding ormal case vide FIR No. 211 date ) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)( pur Rani, Panchkula. ested on 10.1.2025, filed an applicatio fore the learned Additional Session e to be dismissed vide order date e present appeal has been filed for gra appellant submits that appellant, who alsely implicated in the present case. In lieu of his long incarceration as als e complainant and his son have bee s of their statements recorded on Oa udge, Panchkula have also been place to be taken in favour of appellant as serve any useful purpose as the sam under Article 21 of the Constitutio trial but would also be against incarceration is an exception”. It unsel that the likelihood of prospect aulted enient in the mbers. catch dings. dated (1)(s) lication essions r dated or grant , who is case. He as also ve been on Oath placed nt as his e same stitution the It is spect of GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-838 completion submission involved in the relief 4. State couns a habitual uttered cast deserve the of him com justice by of the appe 5. the docume 6. State of W 04.10.2024 IPC, Hon’b incarceratio Maharasht granting ba under:- 838-2026 -3 letion of trial in the near future ission of learned counsel that sim in several other criminal cases, ca sought for. Prayer for allowing Per contra, while opposing the counsel contends that a person with itual offender, trespassed into the hou casteist words and also ridiculed th the relief sought for, if granted the committing yet another offence by not appearing in Court, cannot appeal has been made. I have heard learned counsel ocuments on record. In the case of Rup Bahadur of West Bengal, Criminal Appea .2024, in a case under Sections 394, 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail ceration undergone by him of 2 years a In the case of Javed Gula rashtra and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC ting bail to accused for 04 years in p “16. Criminals are not born b everyone is good and so, neve redemption. This humanist fu 3- future is quite remote. It is also simply because appellant remaine cannot be a ground in itself to den the appeal has been made. the request for grant of bail, learne with questionable past antecedents an house of complainant, attacked him the other family members, does the concession of bail, the likelihoo ence and fleeing from the process annot be ruled out. Prayer for dismiss unsel for the parties and have peruse adur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin V ppeal No.4144 of 2024 decided o 394, 395, 397, 307 read with 120-B o d bail to the accused considering lon years and 9 months. Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State o CC 813, the Supreme Court whi rs in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 held a orn but made. The human potential never write off any criminal as beyon st fundamental is often missed whe the emained deny learned and him, not elihood cess of ismissal perused in Vs. ided on B of ng long ate of rt while held as tial in eyond when GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-838 Singh Alia held that a nonetheless concession 838-2026 -4 dealing with delinquents, juve has a past and every sinn committed, a variety of facto offender commit the crime. T economic, may be, the resu neglect; may be, because of th manifestation of temptations i with indigence or other privati 17. If the State or any p court concerned has no wher fundamental right of an acc enshrined under Article 21 of any other prosecuting agency bail on the ground that the cr 21 of the Constitution applies crime.” Recently, a Co-ordinate Ben Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab pa that although an accused may hav theless if the incarceration period ession of bail. “Therefore, to elucidate furth basic and fundamental princip is a part of reasonable, fair an Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied to the accus 4- juvenile and adult. Indeed, every sai sinner a future. When a crime factors is responsible for making th e. Those factors may be social an result of value erosion or parent of the stress of circumstances, or th ns in a milieu of affluence contraste ivations. y prosecuting agency including th herewithal to provide or protect th accused to have a speedy trial a 1 of the Constitution then the State o ency should not oppose the plea fo e crime committed is serious. Artic plies irrespective of the nature of th e Bench of this Court in Neelkam passed in CRM-M-39765-2024 ha y have past criminal antecedents b eriod is long, he is entitled for th further, this Court is conscious of th inciple of law that right to speedy tri ir and just procedure enshrined und tion of India. This constitutional rig ccused as is the mandate of the Ape y saint me is ng the l and rental or the rasted g the ct the ial as tate or ea for rticle of the kamal 024 has nts but for the of the y trial under l right Apex GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-838 7. have been case, the fa complainan 838-2026 -5 court in “Hussainara Kha Secretary, State of Bihar, Pa this, reference can be drawn u the under-trials should be as the nature of accusation and t of conviction and the nature o apprehension of tampering wi threat to the complainant. As f and involvement of the petitio reliance can be placed upon th CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as State of Punjab” decided referring Article 21 of the Co held that no doubt, at the tim antecedents of the petitioner same time it is equally true t during the course of trial has t the evidence in that case alo evidence in the other pending adherence to the rule of denia of other cases/convictions in petitioner in a situation of den Factual aspects of the case lea been noticed hereinabove. Without fact that appellant has been in cus lainant and his son have been exa 5- Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Hom r, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besid wn upon that pre-conviction period as short as possible keeping in vie nd the severity of punishment in ca re of supporting evidence, reasonab g with the witness or apprehension . As far as the pendency of other cas etitioner in other cases is concerne on the order of this Court rendered d as “Baljinder Singh alias Rock v ed on 02.03.2023, wherein, whi Constitution of India, this Court ha e time of granting bail, the crimin ner are to be looked into but at th rue that the appreciation of evidenc has to be looked into with reference e alone and not with respect to th ding cases. In such eventuality, stri denial of bail on account of pendenc s in all probability would land th f denial of concession of bail.” leading to the registration of the FI thout commenting on the merits of custody since 10.1.2025, as also th examined, further incarceration Home esides iod of n view n case nable ion of cases erned, red in ck vs. while rt has iminal at the idence nce to to the , strict dency d the FIR the that of GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-838 appellant Constitutio against the exception” Pradesh an 8. to his furn Court/Duty conditions: 838-2026 -6 would not only be violative of titution of India, including right to the principle of “Bail is a gener ion” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Co and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Cri Resultantly, appellant is grant is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The appe itions:- (i) The appellant will not the trial. (ii) The appellant will prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall su learned trial Court and shal prior permission of the trial C (iv) The appellant shall not offence of which, he is an acc he is suspected of. (v) The appellant shall no induce, threaten or promise to facts of the case so as to dissu facts to the Court or to any evidence in any manner. (vi) The appellant shall not (vii) The appellant shall f number to the Trial Court fo same till the conclusion of the the appellant seeks to change shall be done only with prio Court, stating the reason for th 6- of his rights under Article 21 of to speedy trial but would also eneral rule and incarceration is Court in Dataram vs. State of Utta (Criminal) 131. s granted the concession of bail subje s to the satisfaction of learned tri appellant shall abide by the followin not tamper with the evidence durin ill not pressurize/ intimidate th surrender his passport before th shall not leave the country witho al Court. l not commit an offence similar to th accused, or for commission of whic ll not directly or indirectly coerc ise to any person acquainted with th ssuade him/her from disclosing suc any police officer or tamper with th not in any manner misuse his liberty ll furnish his address and mobi rt forthwith and shall not change th f the trial and in case for any reaso ange any of the aforesaid, the sam prior intimation to the learned Tri for the same. the be an Uttar subject ed trial llowing during e the re the ithout to the which oerce, ith the g such ith the berty. obile ge the eason, same Trial GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-838 9. that in case at liberty to 10. herein are l construed a independen 18.03.2026 gbs 838-2026 -7 (viii) The appellant will appe and every date fixed, unless i Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M condition, as deemed app petitioner. Accordingly, the present appe in case there is any breach of the afore erty to seek cancellation of bail as gran In view of the above, it is cla n are limited for the purpose of prese trued as an opinion on the merits of the endently of the aforesaid observations .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 7- appear before the trial Court on eac ess is exempted by a specific order ty Magistrate may impose any oth appropriate while releasing th appeal is allowed and it is made cle e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b as granted to the appellant by this orde t is clarified that the observations mad f present proceedings and would not b s of the case and the trial would procee ations. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No n each der of other g the de clear shall be is order. ns made d not be proceed NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document