101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CCCCRRRRAAAA----SSSS----4444000066660000----2222000022225555 DECIDED ON: 07.07.2026 HHHHAAAAW W W WAAAA SSSSIIIINNNNGGGGHHHH .....APPELLANT VERSUS SSSSTTTTAAAATTTTEEEE OOOOFFFF HHHHAAAARRRRYYYYAAAANNNNAAAA AAAANNNNDDDD OOOOTTTTHHHHEEEERRRRSSSS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Goswami, Advocate, and Mr. Amit Maan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. SSSSAAAANNNNJJJJAAAAYYYY VVVVAAAASSSSHHHHIIIISSSSTTTTHHHH ,,,, JJJJ ((((OOOORRRRAAAALLLL)))) 1. Present appeal has been filed, challenging the interim anticipatory bail orders and final anticipatory bail orders passed in bail application Nos.308 of 2025 of accused Aajad alias Azad, dated 09.10.2025 and 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-1 and P-2), 309 of 2025 of accused Rammehar Singh dated 09.10.2025 and 15.10.2025 (Annexures P-3 and P-4), 325 of 2025 of accused Pardeep, dated 15.10.2025 and 20.10.2025 (Annexures P-5 and P-6), and 326 of 2025 of accused Krishan dated 15.10.2025 and 20.10.2025 (Annexures P-7 and P-8), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, arising out of FIR No.170 dated 14.09.2025 (Annexure P-9) under sections 3(1)(r), 3 (1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, and sections 115, 126, 190, 191(3) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. LAVISHA 2026.07.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-4060-2025 -2- 2. Appellant has challenged the separate orders (Annexures P-1 to P-8) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the concession of anticipatory bail was granted to the accused, namely, Aajad @ Azad, Rammehar Singh, Pardeep and Krishan. Principal consideration weighed with the learned Court below was that, in the anticipatory bail proceedings pertaining to another co-accused, namely Rajpal, this Court had already granted interim protection from arrest. Since the impugned orders were passed on different dates and each order is independently appealable under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, separate appeals ought to have been filed against each of the said orders. Nevertheless, without dwelling upon the said procedural aspect, this Court has examined the allegations contained in the FIR. 3. Perusal of the FIR does not disclose the specific caste- related words allegedly uttered by the accused persons, nor learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the same during the course of arguments. Furthermore, FIR does not attribute any specific overt act to any individual accused, by indicating who caused which injury to whom and with what weapon. Rather, complainant, Hawa Singh (appellant herein), has implicated several accused persons by making omnibus and general allegations. 4. Prima facie, to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act, complaint is expected to disclose the specific role attributable to each accused and the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, such particulars do not appear to be forthcoming from the FIR. LAVISHA 2026.07.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh CRA-S-4060-2025 -3- However, without expressing any final opinion on merits of the allegations or applicability of the provisions of SC/ST Act, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstance, warranting interference with the impugned orders. It is also not the case of the appellant that any of the accused has misused the concession of anticipatory bail already granted, so as to justify cancellation thereof. 5. At this stage, learned State counsel has pointed out that, during the course of investigation, two of the accused, namely, Aajad @ Azad and Rammehar Singh, were found to be innocent. 6. Allegations levelled by the complainant-Hawa Singh, are matters of evidence, which the prosecution is required to establish during trial, by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Whether ingredients of the offences punishable under SC/ST Act, are ultimately made out, is also an issue, that shall fall for determination by the trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no valid or substantial ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by learned Court below. CCCCoooonnnnsssseeeeqqqquuuueeeennnnttttllllyyyy,,,, pppprrrreeeesssseeeennnntttt aaaappppppppeeeeaaaallll iiiissss ddddiiiissssmmmmiiiisssssssseeeedddd.... (SANJAY VASHISTH) 00007777....00007777....2222000022226666 JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2026.07.07 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh