IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.02.2026 DEV RAJ ......APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. N.K. Banka, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.

******

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

CRM-49258-2025 This is an application seeking for placing on record the Partnership Deed and Lease Deed as Annexures P-4 and P-5. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the Annexures P-4 and P-5 annexed with the application are taken on record.

Main case

1. An application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Bathinda designated under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on

05.09.2025.

2. Aggrieved of the above-mentioned order, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, the instant appeal has been filed.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the FIR No.203 dated

31.08.2025 was lodged in Police Station Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda.

4. The above-mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of Satgur Singh, who had stated that on 23.07.2025, he alongwith his co-villager/friend Satpal Sharma was present at a Dhaba located near Ravidas Chowk, where three unknown persons assaulted him. According to complainant the above-said assailants abused him in foul language and tried to hit him. The complainant further stated that when Satpal Sharma tried to intervene, they thrashed him (Satpal Sharma) brutally and threatened to kill both of them. It was also stated by the complainant that the above-named assailants also warned them not to visit petrol pump and proclaimed that in case they visited petrol pump, they would be done to death. According to complainant, the assailants had also displayed a revolver, and that they also used derogatory words in abusive manner in the name of caste of the appellant. 5. In addition to above the appellant had also stated that the attack was orcasted by Manhoar Lal, who was his partner in the petrol pump and that Manohar Lal, his son Lavi and father Devraj, too, had been using abusive language qua him by using derogatory words in the name of his caste.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned statements, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that present case is one of the classic case, wherein the FIR has been lodged against three unknown persons, who are yet to be identified, but the name of the appellant has been roped in, merely on the basis of figment of imagination of the complainant. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the present case there is no evidence to show that the assailants, who attacked the complainant, were in any way associated with the appellant, but the appellant is being prosecuted, merely on the ground that the complainant has a suspicion that appellant was instrumental behind the commission of crime.

9. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in the present case, the benefit of anticipatory bail has been denied to the appellant, merely on the ground that provisions of Section-3 of SC and ST Act has been invoked in the present case and Section 18 of the above-mentioned Act debars a Court from according the benefit of anticipatory bail to an accused being prosecuted for such offence.

10. As per learned counsel for the appellant the entire contents of the FIR makes it abundantly clear that firstly the actual words which were used in the name of caste slur have not been detailed by the complainant and secondly