CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) -1- 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) Reserved on 21.07.2026 Pronounced on 23.07.2026 Uploaded on 23.07.2026 JASKARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER …… APPELLANTS VERSUS IQBAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ....… RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Parampreet Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG, Punjab. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. ***** 1. The appeal challenges order dated 13.05.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court, Faridkot vide which application for anticipatory bail of the appellants in complaint No. COMI/692/2023 titled ‘Iqbal Singh Vs. Jaskaran Singh and etc.’ under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC was dismissed. 2. The facts, as per complaint:- Complainant alleged that he worked as seeri with Gurmeet Singh son of Jarnail Singh. On 18.05.2021, at about 2 PM, when he was SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.23 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) -2- making water channels in the fields of Gurmeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh and his brother Dalvir Singh accompanied by Baljinder Kaur wife of Baggar Singh were also doing agricultural work with Kuldeep Singh. Jasvir Singh and Jaskaran Singh were armed with deadly weapons. They all started threatening the complainant. Kuldeep Singh, his brother Dalvir Singh, Baljinder Kaur and Rajvir Singh joined Jasvir Singh who raised lalkara. Accused Jasvir Singh remarked “kuttea churdeya, tenu ik vaar kahi gal samaj vich nahi aundi, jado tenu keh ditta kit u agge to khet vich nahi disna chahida, nahi ta assi teriyaan latta vadd devaange”. Jaskaran Singh also remarked “churedya tu baaj aaja, nahi taan tenu chadamma assi maar ke ethe khet vich hi napp devaange, teri kite ugg sugg nahi milni, ate tere varge chadamma de magar vi koi nahi aaunda”. Accused Jasvir Singh and Jaskaran Singh then pushed him and abused him in the name of his caste. The incident was witnessed by Kuldeep Singh, Dalvir Singh, Rajvir Singh and Baljinder Kaur. Thereafter, both accused left while threatening him with death. They also threatened his brother Gurtej Singh and Lakhwinder Singh that complainant should not work in the fields of Gurmeet Singh, else he would be killed. The next day, on 19.05.2021, when his wife Manpreet Kaur was going to fetch buttermilk from the house of Surjit Singh at around 8-9 AM, all the accused called her to their house and threatened to kill her and the complainant. Charanjit Kaur, Sukhjit Kaur and Lovepreet Kaur said to her “Chuhdiye Tusi Apnia Harkata Toh Baj Aa Javo Te Apne Ghar Wale Nu Samjha Lai Nai Baad Vich Sanu Na Keho Ki Thuada Nuksaan Ho Geya, Aj To Baad To Sadi Gali Vicho Langani Nahi Chahidi, Jekar Aj To Baad Tu Te Tera Pati Gali Vicho Ja Gurmeet Singh De Kheta Vich Dise Te Asi Tuhano Jaano Mar Devange”. His wife filed an application before SSP, Faridkot SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.23 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) -3- against accused persons for taking action but to no avail. The matter was reported to the police and was investigated, but no case was registered. 3. Complainant examined witnesses in preliminary evidence after considering which, learned JMIC, Jaitu, found prima facie case made out for summoning appellants Jaskaran Singh and Jasvir Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC with regard to incident dated 18.05.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants were falsely implicated in the case. The complaint was filed against them and their family members at the instance of employers of respondent No.1/complainant who had been harassing family of the appellants from time to time, interfering in their possession. The case was instituted only to exert pressure on account of previous prolonged litigation. Respondent No.1 and Manpreet Kaur were used as puppets by Gurmeet Singh with whom appellants had a family dispute. Two criminal cases i.e. FIR No.46 dated 11.05.2020 and FIR No.148 dated 18.10.2017 were registered against Gurmeet Singh etc. employer of respondent No.1 who nursed grudge against the appellants. Both incidents dated 18.05.2021 and 19.05.2021 were based on cooked up, bogus and concocted story. Relying upon Rajendra Bharti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, Criminal Appeal No.1572 of 2021, date of decision 07.12.2021, Anand Singh Vs. The State of Gujarat and Another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4967 of 2026, date of decision 06.05.2026 and Gulzar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, CRA-S-3319 of 2025, date of decision 18.11.2025, learned counsel submits SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.23 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) -4- that Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 did not bar anticipatory bail in the complaint as no prima facie case was made out for applicability of the provision of the act. He thus prayed that order dated 13.05.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court, Faridkot be set aside and appellants be ordered to be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Faridkot declining anticipatory bail submitting that offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was prima facie made out against the appellants, who were summoned by learned JMIC, Jaitu upon consideration of evidence of 8 witnesses and in view of the bar envisaged under Section 18 of the Act, appellants were rightly declined concession of anticipatory bail. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in Sajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala and Another 2024(3) NCC 417 that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, would apply only to those cases, where prima facie material exists pointing towards the commission of offence under the Act of 1989. In that case also, a Bench of two judges of the Apex Court elaborated the law in respect of grant of anticipatory bail and recognized the bar created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to observe that only in the cases where the offence could not be said to have been made out on a very prima facie consideration, the Court may exercise discretion in granting pre- arrest bail to the accused. 7. The question when a prima facie case is not made out in a SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.23 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) -5- particular case was answered by the Apex Court in Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Another 2025 INSC 1067 observing as under: “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.” 8. Appellants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC vide order dated 28.04.2026 of learned JMIC, Jaitu in a criminal complaint filed by respondent No.1. In preliminary evidence, complainant examined as many as 8 witnesses alleging 2 incidents dated 18.05.2021 and 19.05.2021. Notice under Section 223 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was served upon the appellants, their version of false implication on account of previous rivalry with employer of respondent No.1/complainant was considered whereafter, the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellants in respect of the incident dated 18.05.2021. Upon appraisal and assessment of the preliminary evidence led, learned JMIC, Jaitu has taken note of the caste certificate proved by the respondent No.1 through official witness, CW7 and noticed that the appellants, who were not SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.23 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1829-2026 (O&M) -6- members of the Scheduled Caste community intentionally addressed the complainant by caste names and uttered derogatory words. Considering the statements of the witnesses who were present at spot learned Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the occurrence took place in public view. From an analysis of preliminary evidence led and the conclusions drawn by learned JMIC, Jaitu, it cannot be said that necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not prima facie disclosed. Defence version that the case was false and planted by employer of respondent No.1 on account of previous dispute and criminal cases lodged by the appellants, cannot be appreciated at this stage. In view of the specific bar envisaged by Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the application for anticipatory bail was rightly declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Faridkot. No interference in the order under challenge is called for. 9. The appeal stands dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 23.07.2026 JUDGE Sumit Singla Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGLA 2026.07.23 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document