[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajan vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 March, 2026

CRA-S-4080-2025                                                                    -1-




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                       CRA-S-4080-2025
Rajan
                                                                             ...Appellant
                                              Versus

State of Punjab and another
                                                                          ...Respondents

Sr. No.                              Particulars                               Details
1         The date when the judgment is reserved                            19.03.2026
2         The date when the judgment is pronounced                          20.03.2026
3         The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website             20.03.2026
          Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4                                                                           Full
          judgment is pronounced
          The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and     Not
5
          reasons thereof                                                   applicable


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:        Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

                Mr. Hasrat Brar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                        ***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the

Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') by the appellant challenging the order dated

27.11.2025, whereby the prayer made by him for grant of anticipatory bail in

case arising out of FIR No. 161 dated 28.10.2025 registered under Sections

115(2), 351(2), 191(3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short

1 of 6

'BNS') (Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act added later on) at Police

Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur, had been declined by the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

2. Brief fact relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are

that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded

by the respondent No.2-complainant alleging that on the evening of

26.10.2025, he was standing outside his house when the appellant

accompanied by the co-accused reached there in a Honda city car. All of them

alighted from the car. Some brickbats and stones were kept by his

neighbourers in the street. While moving those bricks and stones on a side,

the appellant and others started hurling abuses. The complainant told them to

not to do so and then they started having an altercation with him and hurled

abuses to him as well. The accused Happy struck a blow with a stone on his

shoulder. Accused Dev gave him a fist blow. The appellant and co-accused

Tanu threw stones thereby injuring his abdomen and head. They threw him on

the ground and started giving fist blows and kicks. His neighbourer Harjinder

Kaur rushed for his rescue, but the appellant gave a blow with brickbats to her

which hit on her right leg. On hearing clamour, other persons reached at the

spot and then the assailants fled away while extending threats to the

complainant and also by using caste based remarks. The complainant was got

admitted in the hospital.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been

initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant moved an

2 of 6

application for grant of anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 27.11.2025.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the

impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same,

the fact that the ingredients for commission of offences punishable under

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act were not attracted at all against the

appellant had not been taken into consideration at all. Neither it was alleged

in the FIR that the appellant knew that the complainant belonged to scheduled

caste was mentioned nor there is any material on record to show that the

appellant was aware of this fact. The only role assigned to him is of throwing

a stone thereby causing injury on the abdomen of the respondent No.2. The

said injury has been opined to be simple in nature. No other role has been

ascribed to the appellant. All other offences are triable by Magistrate and are

bailable in nature. It is argued that there was no material on record to show

that the appellant had used any language with intention to humiliate the

respondent No.2 in public view and also while knowing that he belonged to

scheduled caste community. It is, also, argued that the ingredients of Section

18 of the SC/ST Act are not attracted at all. It is further submitted that the

appellant is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not

required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, thus, argued that the

appeal deserves to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and

he deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for

3 of 6

respondent No.2, while relying upon the written response has argued that there

are serious and specific allegations against the appellant. He was named in the

FIR and specific act had been attributed to him. The appellant along with other

accused had used filthy and derogatory language by hurling abuses to

respondent No.2 against the name of his caste. The bar under Section 18 is

certainly attracted in this case. It is, therefore, argued that there is no illegality

or infirmity in the impugned order and hence, it is stressed that no ground for

allowing the appeal is made out.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at

considerable length.

7. In Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra

and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

that anticipatory bail could be granted if a prima facie case of commission of

an offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out or if it can be shown that the

allegations were false. In Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and another, 2024

SCC OnLine SC 2249, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a duty

is cast upon the Court to determine prima facie existence with a view to ensure

that no unnecessary humiliation is caused to the accused. The Courts should

not shy away from conducting a preliminary inquiry to determine if the

narration of facts in the complaint/FIR in fact discloses the essential

ingredients required to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. It was

further observed that if the accusation does not disclose the necessary

ingredients of the offence on a prima facie reading, it cannot be said to be

4 of 6

sufficient to bring into operation the bar envisaged by Section 18 of the SC/ST

Act and holding otherwise would mean that even a plain accusation, devoid

of the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence, would be

enough for invoking the bar under Section 18 of the said Act. On applying the

above discussed position of law to the facts peculiar to this case, it is observed

that as per the allegations, the appellant formed an unlawful assembly with

the co-accused and assaulted the respondent No.2 by throwing a stone thereby

causing simple injury on his abdomen. He has been booked for commission

of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act as well

on the allegations that he along with the co-accused had hurled abuses to

respondent No.2. The complainant is stated to be belonging to schedule caste

community. As per the allegations, the appellant and the co-accused had

hurled abuses to him while assaulting him on the fateful day, thereby

intentionally insulting and intimidating him with intent to humiliate him

within public view. On a perusal of the contents of FIR, it is revealed that only

vague and general allegations have been levelled. There is no specificity as to

what exact words were used by the appellant or others which amounted to

commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of

SC/ST Act. As such, it is a matter of trial as to whether, any case for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST

Act can be stated to have been made out thereby attracting the bar under

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

8. The appellant is ready to join the investigation. His custodial

5 of 6

interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the

appellant is granted concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions

envisaged under Section 482 (2) of BNSS. This order shall also be subject to

the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days from today and cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.