JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissing the application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.217 dated 25.10.2025 registered under Sections 351(2), 3(5), 126 and 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1989 (hereinafter in short as ‘SC/ST Act’) (Section 117(2) of the BNS added later on), at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the appellant along with co-accused had caused injuries to the complainant and abused him in the name of his caste, due to some old enmity.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some old enmity. He submitted that the appellant is himself a victim and it is the complainant who was the aggressor. He further submitted that the father of the appellant (Durga Parsad) himself has received eight injuries given by the complainant. He argued that the stringent provisions of SC/ST Act has been misused. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 15.10.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 25.10.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 10 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further submitted that the complainant himself is a habitual offender and the appellant has been falsely implicated because he raised his voice in the village regarding selling of drugs by the complainant. No recovery is to be effected from him. He further argued that the custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required for any recovery and he is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 26.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the appellant are serious in nature. He argued that the appellant has been specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the appellant along with co-accused had used caste related words for the complainant and inflicted injuries upon him with an iron pipe. He further argued that specific caste words “Dhed ke Bij” was used by the appellant with clear intention to insult the complainant which finds mention in the FIR itself. Thus, custodial interrogation of the appellant is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to effect recovery of weapon of offence used in the crime. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has put in appearance and while adopting the submission made by learned State counsel, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that the appellant has played an active role in the crime, used caste based words in order to humiliate him and caused injuries to the complainant with an iron pipe, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘S