CRA-S-1387-2026 -1- 201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1387-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 Naveen Kumar and another …Appellants vs. State of Haryana and another …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Najar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2026, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby an application filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail in a case FIR No.83 dated 13.03.2026 registered under Sections 115(2), 3(5) and 351(3) BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(5), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Sonipat Sadar, District Sonipat, was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that on 13.03.2026, prior to registration of the FIR (Annexure P-1), another FIR No. 82 HEMLATA 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1387-2026 -2- dated 12.03.2026 under Sections 221, 132, 15(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station Sadar, Sonipat was got registered by Ankur, BDPO regarding the altercation, which had allegedly taken place at the time of holding the inquiry. However, there is no such reference of any such allegation in the said FIR. This clearly proves that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the present case are culpably false and the FIR No. 82 dated 12.03.2026 under Sections 221, 132, 15(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station Sadar, Sonipat has been got lodged by the complainant admitted previous enmity between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that appellant No.1 in the past also had filed many complaints against Sheela Devi, Sarpanch and Ankur Kumar, BDPO regarding illegal soil mining from the reserved funds. Even the Sarpanch Sheela Devi had lifted the soil from the Panchayat Deh land and sold the same illegally and the Mining Department of Haryana Government had imposed the penalty on her in this regard. Apart from that, a corruption case along with contempt of Court proceedings are also pending against Ankur Kumar, BDPO, due to his wrong acts, while he was posted as BDPO, Murthal. Apart from that, the appellants had also filed complaints against the complainant regarding the cutting of Banyan tree on Panchayati land, illegal construction on Panchayati land and illegal use of letterhead of “Shri Guru Ravidas Samaj Kalyan Sabha”. Due to the complaints filed by the appellants, the Forest Department had imposed a penalty of Rs.4,001/- on the complainant for illegal cutting of trees. Even the Department of Industries, Haryana had issued a show cause notice to the complainant for illegal use of the letterheads of “Shri Guru Ravidas Samaj Kalyan Sabha”. Learned counsel further submits that apart from that, the complainant was having enmity with the present appellants and due to the HEMLATA 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1387-2026 -3- previous enmity, FIR No. 82 dated 12.03.2026 under Sections 221, 132, 15(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station Sadar, Sonipat has been got registered by the complainant/respondent No.2 by concocting a false story. Apart from that, even from the allegations levelled by the complainant, it is apparent that no offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. Further in pursuance of the interim order dated 07.07.2026 passed by this Court, the appellants have already surrendered before the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer and they have been admitted to interim bail. 3. Learned State counsel also submits that the appellants have already appeared before the concerned SHO/IO in the present case and they have been admitted to interim bail. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that in the present case, the appellants had caused multiple bruises on the person of the complainant. However, he could not dispute the fact that the injuries suffered by the complainant in the present case are simple in nature. Apart from that, learned counsel submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court is not empowered to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the appellants and the appeal deserves to be dismissed by this Court. Further, there was previous enmity between the parties and the appellants had caused injuries due to the previous enmity between the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. HEMLATA 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1387-2026 -4- 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was prior enmity between the parties and the complainant is yet to lead evidence to prove the allegations levelled by him in the present FIR. It is also not in dispute that in FIR No. 82 dated 12.03.2026 under Sections 221, 132, 15(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station Sadar, Sonipat, no such allegations were levelled by the complainant of the said case and it would be a debatable as to whether the alleged occurrence had taken place or not and the prosecution is yet to lead evidence in this regard before the trial Court. 7. Apart from that, in compliance of interim order dated 07.07.2026, passed by this Court, the appellants had already surrendered before the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer and have been admitted to bail. Thus, the custodial interrogation of the appellants may not be required in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the interim order dated 07.07.2026, passed by this Court is made absolute. The appellants shall continue to join investigation, as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) 22.07.2026 JUDGE hemlata Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HEMLATA 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document