IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 101+201 Harjeet Singh State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate (through for the respondent No.2/complainant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-4791-2026 The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 documents on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, reply as well as documents (annexed as R No.2/complainant are taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful. CRA-S-3254-2025 The instant 04.10.2025 passed by the application for grant of anticipatory bail had been dismissed in complaint No.SC/89 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-3254 Date of decision: VERSUS Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate (through for the respondent No.2/complainant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2026 The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for placing on record reply and documents on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, reply as well as documents (annexed as R-1 to R-3) filed on No.2/complainant are taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful. 2025 The instant appeal has been filed 04.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the lication for grant of anticipatory bail had been dismissed in complaint No.SC/89 of 2021/CIS No.2115 of 2025-BA registered under Sections 420, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3254-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.02.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for the appellant. Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate (through V.C.) for the respondent No.2/complainant. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the for placing on record reply and documents on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, reply as well as 3) filed on behalf of the respondent Registry is directed to do the needful. has been filed against the order dated Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the lication for grant of anticipatory bail had been dismissed in complaint registered under Sections 420, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.17 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 101+201 CRA-S-3254-2025 (O&M) 406, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 17.10.2025, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellant(s) contends that complainant-respondent No.2/Gurnam Singh had filed the complaint in question alleging that the appellant had been awarded a contract by Military Farm, Ambala Cantt. for the period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 for providing green- chara from land of Military Farm. The appellant is alleged to have made a sub-contract with the complainant for providing green-chara on his behalf which was being regularly provided but the payment of Rs. 6,37,841.90/-was being withheld. In September-2016, as per the allegation made by the complainant, there was violation in terms and conditions of the agreement executed between them as a result whereof the dispute ensued amongst the parties. On 19.03.2017, when the complainant was coming from gate of plot No.18 of Cantt. area, the accused/appellant is alleged to have uttered casteist remarks with a view to insult complainant-respondent No.2. He submits that consequent upon the institution of the complaint, a report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was called for by the Judicial Magisitrate 1st Class, Ambala vide order dated 03.04.2018. The SHO, Police Station Parao submitted his report dated 08.06.2018 to the effect that no offences as alleged by the complainant were made out. Subsequently, the matter was committed to the Special Court by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala vide order 23.02.2021. The appellant has been summoned for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(i) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.17 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 101+201 CRA-S-3254-2025 (O&M) of Atrocities) Act, 1989 vide order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Counsel for the appellant contends that it is a civil dispute that is being given portrayed as a criminal offence. It is submitted that upon inquiry conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, HQ, Ambala, the alleged offences were not substantiated and a report to that effect was placed before the Court indicating that no prima face offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not found to have been established. Notice of motion for 30.01.2026. In the meanwhile, further proceeding before the trial Court qua the appellant shall remain stayed.” 3. On resumed hearing, counsel for the respondent-State submits that the appellant has appeared before the Trial Court and that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required. 4. Counsel for respondent No.2 however contends that the appellant has not appeared before the Court with clean hands and has concealed vital facts and that the report given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Ambala exonerating the appellant herein and portraying that it was only a civil dispute is incorrect. On a pointed query, he does not dispute that the contentions advanced by the respondents involve disputed questions of fact which are yet to be ascertained during the course of trial and prima facie the report submitted by the Investigating Agency would be of material significance. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required and it having been concluded that it is pre-dominantly a civil SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.17 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 101+201 CRA-S-3254-2025 (O&M) dispute and no criminal offence as alleged took place and taking note that the factum as to whether the offence in question would be made out or not would be a disputed question which is yet to be ascertained against the appellant during the course of the trial. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court and in the event of his doing so, he shall be admitted to bail by the Trial Court on his furnishing of bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 7. However, if required, the appellant shall continue to appear before the Trial Court. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 13.02.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.17 20:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document