Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bansi Lal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031127
CRA-S-578-2025 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-578-2025
Reserved on: 25th February, 2025
Pronounced on: 4th March, 2025
Bansi Lal and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Apoorv Garg, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short, 'the Act, 1989') against the order dated 11.02.2025 as passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal in case
arising out of FIR No. 17 dated 29.01.2025 registered under Sections 115,
190, 191(3), 333, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS')
and Section 3(2) (va) the Act, 1989, at Police Station Cheeka, District
Kaithal, whereby an application for grant of anticipatory bail as filed by the
appellants, had been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of
this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of
statement recorded by respondent No.2-complainant Raj Kumar @ Kala
alleging that on 28.01.2025 at about 10:00 AM, he was working in cattle
shed when the accused Nafe Singh, Kamlesh and their son Monu entered
inside. They started calling bad names to him by abusing him in the name of
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031127
CRA-S-578-2025 2-
his caste and extended threat to him to vacate the shed. Accused Monu
caught him by neck and took him out of the shed. On hearing the clamour,
Laxmi Chand his elder brother also reached there. The accused started
assaulting his brother and himself while giving abuses to them. Several
neighbourers collected at the spot. In the meanwhile, the appellants
accompanied by the co-accused reached there and they were armed with
sticks. All of them, proclaimed that the complainant and his family members
being dedh and chamars should be taught a lesson. They opened an attack
upon the complainant and his family members with sticks. The appellant-
accused- Sandeep gave fist blows to the complainant leading to damage of
his teeth. The co-accused also assaulted them. In the meanwhile, police has
reached there and saved them from the clutches of the accused. The
complainant was rushed to the hospital and was given treatment. After
registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the
same are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the appellants moved
application for grant of pre-arrest bail which was dismissed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal vide order dated
11.02.2025.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the
same, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that the offence under Section
333 of BNS had been deleted during the course of investigation. All the
other offences under the provisions of BNS are bailable in nature. The
provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989 were not at all attracted. It is
a case of a version and cross- version as an FIR bearing No. 21 dated
01.02.2025 has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031127
CRA-S-578-2025 3-
appellants side on 01.02.2025. Appellants are ready to join the investigation.
Their custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected
from them. Therefore, it has been urged that the impugned order is liable to
the set aside, appeal deserves to be accepted and they deserve to be given
benefit of pre-arrest bail.
4. Status report had been filed by respondent-State. Learned
Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana assisted by learned counsel for
respondent No.2-complainant has vehemently argued that there are specific
and serious allegations against the appellants. The provisions of Section 18
of the Act, 1989 are attracted in the case and the same certainly barred grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
did not commit any error in declining the reliefs claimed by the appellants.
Therefore, it has been argued that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at considerable
length and have gone through the record carefully.
6. As per the allegations, on 27.01.2025, the appellants formed
membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and in prosecution
of common object of that unlawful assembly, they voluntarily caused simple
hurt to the complainant. As per the further allegations, the appellants also
insulted respondent No.2-complainant and his family members with an
intent to humiliate them, they being members of schedule caste and hurled
abuses in the name of their caste. It is not in dispute that the complainant is a
member of scheduled caste. As per the allegations in the FIR, the appellants
along with the co-accused had insulted/intimidated respondent No.2 along
with his family members outside his house, by hurling abuses in the name of
his caste. The incident is alleged to have taken place outside his house and
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031127
CRA-S-578-2025 4-
within the sight of several public persons and therefore, a prima facie case
for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989
has been made out which also falls within the definition of Section 3(2)(va)
being an offence as mentioned in schedule of the Act, 1989. It is well settled
proposition of law that the bar created by Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would
not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for
applicability of this Act. As per the Section 18, the provisions of Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which are pari materia with Setion 482
of BNS) will not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any
person accused of having committed an offence under this Act and,
therefore, a person accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of
the Act, 1989 is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Court under Section
438 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Section 14 of the Act, 1989 provides for filing an appeal to the
High Court against an order granting or refusing bail. In Vinod Bindal vs. State
of Haryana, 2023 (1) RCR (Criminal) 392, a coordinate Bench of this Court
had observed that only the Courts constituted under Section 14 of the Act i.e.
Special Court and Exclusive Special Court can have jurisdiction to entertain an
application for bail and the power of the Court of Sessions and High Court in
its original criminal jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 438 or
439 of Cr.P.C. have been impliedly taken away by Section 14 of the Act, 1989.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment cited as Dr. Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2018) 6 SCC 454
has dealt with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 and observed that
the exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail will not apply when no prima
facie case is made out or the case is patently false or mala fide or where on
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031127
CRA-S-578-2025 5-
judicial scrutiny, the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
8. In the instant case on perusal of the contents of the allegations
as levelled in the FIR lodged by respondent No.2- complainant, it cannot be
stated that no prima facie case for commission of offences for which the
present appellants have been summoned including the offence punishable
under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 has been made out. Rather the allegations
on the face of the record show that the appellants committed offences
punishable under Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989. As such, the
bar created under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 applies to this case. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order had
made observations as to the bar created under Section 18 of the Act, 1989.
No illegality or irregularity can be stated to have been committed by the
learned trial Court while passing the impugned order. Even otherwise, no
extra ordinary or exceptional circumstance has been made out in this case
for extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to the appellants. As such, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order does not warrant any
interference and the appeal does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, pending application,
if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
4th February, 2025
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
