JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissing the application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.162 dated 10.07.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 190, 191(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short as ‘SC/ST Act’), at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad.

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

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the appellant was neither named in the FIR, nor has any concern with the said offence. It has also been contended that the appellant was nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Resham Singh and Jiwan Singh. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further argued that no overt act has been attributed to the present appellant. He argued that the no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant because the essential ingredients i.e. public view is missing. He further argued that the name of the appellant was cropped up merely because he was standing there and no specific role has been attributed to him. No recovery is to be effected from him. Further, co- accused Resham Singh and Jeewan Singh have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 12.07.2025 and co-accused Jaspal Singh and Kamdev alias Dev Saini have also been granted the benefit of regular bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. 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, Fatehabad, vide order dated 19.09.2025.

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 actively participated in the offence and was specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Resham Singh and Jiwan Singh. He further argued that the appellant was part of the unlawful assembly and he is the person who conspired and insulted the complainant in the name of his caste and used the words “chura dedh”. However, he has not controverted the fact that the appellant is first time offender as he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that the 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 and motor-cycle used in the crime. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant, has contended that the appellant has played an active role in the crime and, thus, does not deserve the concession of bail.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory b